rothman - historian v historian

8/12/2019 Rothman - Historian v Historian

1/16

Historian v. Historian: Interpreting the Past in the CourtroomAuthor(s): Hal K. RothmanSource: The Public Historian, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring, 1993), pp. 39-53Published by: University of California PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3377944

Accessed: 05/04/2010 06:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of California Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The

Public Historian.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3377944?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucalhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3377944?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/16

Historians in Litigation u p p o r t

His t or i an v Hi s t o r i annterpreting t h a s t i n t h

tourtroom

HAL K. ROTHMAN

HISTORIANSARENO LONGERn unusualight n the courtroom.incethe 1950s,historiansavebeenactive nlegalproceedingss experts ndadversaries.istoriansow unctionn arange f rolesandcases,offeringtheirexpertiseo prosecutionnddefense ncivil,criminal,ndadminis-trativeproceedings. heyhavebecomevalued onsultantso the legalprofession,ftenholdinghepower o swayudges nd uries.Somekindsof cases, suchas those adjudicatednder he Potentially esponsibleParties PRP) lauseof CERCLA morecommonly nownas the Su-perfundAct cry out forhistoricalestimony.lOthers, uchas cases nwhichan ongoingpattern f allegedlyllegalbehaviorwith roots n ahistoric ime nwhich he behavior assanctioned,epend n historicalevidence oshow ontinuity. tillothers tilize istory scontext, xplain-ingactions nddecisions f thepastby thevalues ftheir imeratherhanthe present.The valueof historiansn the courtroomependson theirability opresenta credible nterpretationf thesituationn question.Historynthecourtrooms far rom nacademicxercise.Historians ustbe able oofferan interpretationhat appears elevant o the case, is basedonevidence,andsquareswith the judge'sand ury'sunderstandingf theways f theworld.Thecourtroomestimonyfa historians a communica-tionprocesswith he potentialo vastlynfluencemportantroceedings.

Yeteachcourt ase s unique,driven yfactorsarbeyond he roleand1. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42United States Code, Sections 9601-9675.

39The Public Historian, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Spring 1993)(C) 993 by the Regents of the University of Californiaand the National Council on Public History


3/16

40 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANscopeof historianss expertwitnesses.Winning casecanhingeon thepredispositionf the udgeand he levelofpreparationf counsel.Attor-neysdo notalways nderstandheways nwhich historiananbe usefulto them,orconversely, amageheir ase.Someattorneyseek o inte-grate heirwitnessesnto he case;otherseek o limitcontacto every-thingbut hespecificssueso which hehistorian ill estify,ecognizingthatgreater articipationan ead o chargeshat heattorneynfluencedthe expert'sestimony.Few courtcasesactuallyurnon a historian'serspective,ut veryoften,the credibility f historicalestimonyervesas a frame hroughwhich o view he specificvents n a case.A historian hoseestimonysallowed o standunchallenged aybe a devastatingpponent,whileusingan attorneyo challengehattestimonyntails isksof its own.Counteringhistorian ithanother istorianlsopresents ifficulties.Suchdecisions, lways he province f attorneys, layan importantfunderestimatedole n thestructurefacaseand onsequentlyn theendresult.In a recent ederal ourt ase,Navajo Nation and Watchmanet al. v.State ofNew Mexico, the valueof unchallengedistoricalestimonyplayed ninfluentialole n the finaldecision.Thecaseresultedromdecisionn 1985by theNew MexicoDepartmentf Health ndHumanServicesHHS)hataffectedhedispositionffunds romTitleXXof theSocial ecurity ct.Beginningn 1973,HHS unded TitleXXprogramforthe NavajoNation hatallowed omehealth are ormany lderly,disadvantagedavajos. hishomehealth areprogramasoneof manyprogramsunded hrough itleXX n New Mexicoandbecause f thevastneedontheNavajoeservation,rewo be thesingleargestxpendi-ture n thestate's itleXXbudget.Yetdespitehe argeum xpendednthereservation,heproportionfmoneypent emainedmallerhan hepercentagef Navajosountedn thestate's opulationorTitleXX und-ingpurposes.n 1985, hestateagreedo fund he programt the 1984level, butfacedwith ast-minutehangeshatresultedrom he needtofund ederallymandateditizens dvisoryoards,ater ut hefundingy40 percent.No otherprogram ascutat all. The NavajoNation ued,arguinghatby reducinghefundingo itshomehealthareprogram,hestatehad llegallynjuredeedyNavajoeople.2

Lead ttorneyHenryHoweof the Navajo ation oughto strengthenhis casewitha then-novelechnique. acedwitha situationn whichhisclientshadbeen singledout for funding eductions hileothernon-Indian eoplewhoweredemonstrablyot as needyretainedheirser-vices, Howesensedthatthe behavior f the Anglos nd Hispanos-2. Navajo Nation and Watchman, et al. v. State of New Mexico;Juan R. Vigil, in hisofficial capacity as Secretary of the Neu MexicoHumanServices Department,CivilNo. 86-0576 M, U. S. DistrictCourt orNew Mexico,SecondAmendedComplaintor DeclaratoryandInjunctiveReliefand Damages.


4/16


5/16

42 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANUpon their returnfromexile, the Navajoceased to be a formidablethreat o the territory f New Mexico,butthey were notintegratednto

its structure.A Navajo conomyapart rom hatof the restof the territorycontinued,andwhilerelationswerepeaceful,Navajos ndNew Mexicanswere clearlydifferentpeoplein differentworldswith littleresponsibilityto oneanother.Thatpattern ontinued ntothe twentieth entury.6Mostof this information as readilyavailable rompublishedhistoriesof the Navajoand of Indian/Whiteelations.Whilemuch of the workfocusedclearlyon federalrelationswithNavajos, substantial ndercur-rent existedthatdemonstrated New Mexicanpatternof antipathy o-ward the Navajo.There was nothing new or earth-shaking bout theperspective.Howe merelyneeded to findthe kindofhistorianwho couldcrediblyexpressthatcontextas support or moretechnical egal pointsthathe sought o show.Initially,Howe contacted uthors fpublishedhistoriesof the Navajo.Distinguishedcholars uchas PeterIversonof Arizona tateUniversity,LawrenceKellyof NorthTexasState,DonaldParman fPurdueUniver-sity, andotherswere asked ftheywouldconsent o testify.BecauseHowewaiteduntilthe lastminute o decidethathe neededhistoricalestimony,all wereunavailable.7 e eventually ettledon a younger cholar,Hal K.Rothman,whohadnotpublisheddirectly nthe Navajo, uthadexpertisein federalpolicyandrelationsn the Westandwas n themidstof preparinga historyof a national arkareaon the Navajo eservation.It wasa calculated isk,boththe historian ndtheattorney ecognized.While viablein certainareasof the case, the historian ecognized hatIndian/Whiteelationswerenot hisstrongest rea.He suggested ryinganumberofotherpeople, butin the end, Howe nsisted.Opposingcounsel JohnPoundof Montgomery ndAndrewsof Albu-querquewasfacedwith a difficult ituation.Hisassessmentwas that theNavajo asewas specious; nearlyadministrativeuling hatrelieved hestate of its responsibilityora verbalpromise o continue undingat thelevel of previousyearsenhancedhis confidence. n preparationor thedeposition,he planneda strategy f his own.Pound ocusedon anuncomfortableeality orhisopponents: reviousfederalrulingshaddetermined hatdiscriminationad to be personal ncharacter. n most cases, the law held thatplaintiSshad to demonstrateintentto successfully laimbias. Institutionaliscriminationadyet to beacceptedas a viable legalconcept.As a result, Poundbelieved that thehistorian'sestimonywas not relevantto the case. In his view, Howewould have to demonstrate hat Juan R. Vigil, the state SecretaryofHumanServices,and the other individualswho madethe decisionborepersonal nimosity owardhe Navajo.

6. White, Rootsof Dependency,18-313.7. Henry Howe conversationwith Hal K. Rothman, May 17, 1990.


6/16

HISTORIAN V. HISTORIAN * 43Thisperspectivenfluencedound'seterminationottoseekanotherhistorians a witness o counterhe plaintiSshistorian.Hiring notherhistorian ouldnegate heargument e soughto make, ora historiantestifyinghatNewMexico orenoanimosityowardNavajos ould le-vate thetestimony f the otherhistoriano a level ofrespectabilityhatPounddid not grantt. Adangerous aneuverounteredecognizesheimportancef the originalmove.Instead,Pound ought o exclude hehistorian'sestimonyn thegroundst was rrelevanto thecase.8Pound's hoicewasreasonable. ecognizinghathistoricalestimonycoulddosignificantamageo hiscase,hesoughto have teliminated.n

acourtroom,he truthbecomeshe nterpretationfadmissiblevidence.Excludedestimony,oweverrue,relevant, rmaterial, asnobearing.Poundwascomfortablehat n theselected enue,a bench rial,a chal-lenge othe testimony ould ieldhimasatisfactoryesult.In frontof JudgeEdwinL. Mechem, he former overnor f NewMexico nda sponsoring ember f the NewMexicoHistoricalociety,the casewasheard n U.S. DistrictCourt nAlbuquerquenSeptember1990.Thecasedepended n anumber ffeatures.Howehad o show hattheNavajo adbeensingled utfor he fundingut. With he testimonyof the defendants, e was able to showthatno otheralternative asconsidered.He alsohad o show hat he effect f thecutwas o depriveconstituencyf services ntitled o thembylaw.A number f Navajos,from ecipients f theprogramoitsadministrators,xplainedhe way nwhichpeoplewerehurtby a lackof access ohealth ervices.Withmuchtangible videnceofdamage,Howesought o link he twofacetsof hiscasetogether.Not only were the Navajo amaged y an unfairdeci-sionmakingrocess, e asserted,heywere ingled utbecauseheywereNavajo.Puttinghe different indsofevidence ogether equiredmuch kill.Howesought o show hatnotonly did the statedecide o cut Navajofundingn a capriciousmanner, fficialsmadea decision hat was incharacternd scope ndistinguishablerom hehistory f governmentaldecisionsy thevariousncarnationsf NewMexico. hatkindof contex-tual nformationouldonlybecredibly upplied y ahistorian.Asexpected,Howeputhishistoriann thestand.After hepreliminar-ies,Howeasked hehistorianostateand ubstantiateny ormed pinionabout henature frelationsetweenNewMexico nd heNavajo eo-ple. Poundobjected, rguinghatthetestimony adnobearing n thecase. He asked he witness f he haddegrees n psychology,f he waspersonallycquaintediththeindividualefendants,nd fhe hadper-sonalknowledge ftheirattitudesowardNativeAmericans.hewitnessanswered o to allthreequestions,ndPound sked or heexclusion f

8. Deposition of Hal K. Rothman, in Navajo Nation and Watchman, et al. v. State ofNew Mexico, June 6, 1990, Albuquerque, New Mexico.


7/16

44 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANthetestimony.udgeMechem ecided ohear hetestimonyeforehedeterminedf it wasadmissible. e then urned o thewitness ndsug-gestedhat hetestimonyemain rief.Thehistorianavehiscommentary,mphasizinghecontinuityf atti-tudesandbehaviorowardheNavajovera 300-yeareriod.Hedemon-strated otonlyhistoricnimosity,utdecisionseachingnto he1980sthatdeprivedheNavajo feducationalacilities,ealth are, chool er-vices, and a rangeof othergovernment-fundedrogramsaken orgranted lsewheren the stateandnation.n somecases, ocalgovern-mentused ederalmoneydirectedorNavajoso serveother onstituen-cies; nothernstances, avajoequestsor nclusionnthedistributionffederalunds oprogramseredenied.Withmorehan hirty xamples,at least ten of whichweremorerecent han1970, he inferencewasstrong.Butit remainednlypartof anargument. hecasealsohingedonwhetherhequestionmeritedederaldjudication.oundontendedhatthefundingeduction asreally nadministrativeecision. heofEcialswhomade hedecisionngagedn routine epartmentalrerogativestheydid in many imilarnstancesn thecourse ftheirusualworkday.

When he trialended, hewaiting amebegan. udgeMechemookthecaseunder dvisement.owe eltthat hetrialhadgonewelland hehistorian'sestimony adbeenhelpful, ut in hisview,the entire asehinged nthe udge's uling nthehistoriantestimony. owe'sasewasbuiltaroundhepremise f along-standingattern fdiscriminationhatled tothecircumventionf areasonablend airdecisionmakingrocess.Withouthehistorian'sestimony, e hadnothingmorehan hespecificcase nquestion, decisionhat ould learly einterpretedswithin headministrativeurisdictionfthedepartment.Nearly ixmonthsater,JudgeMechem ecidedhe case n favor fNavajo.He ruled hat hedecisionwas nfactarbitraryndcapricious,depriving constituencyf its reasonablehareof federalunding. naddition, e notedthe historicalestimony,emarkinghat t demon-strated pattern fdiscriminationhathaddeephistoricoots.The udgealsoacceptedhehistorian'sontentionhatherewereegitimateeasonsfor the actions f the past,but no basis or theircontinuationn thepresent.Thediscriminatoryttitude,hejudgeagreed,wasa relicof anearlier,moreadversarialimesubconsiouslyranslatedntothemodernera.The Navajowereawardedhe money aken rom heprogramn1985.Thestatebegan opreparets appeal.0Thecontextualalue fhistory elpedmake heWatchmancase.With-out t, theplaintiSs ttorney ould avebeen orcedocontendhatone

9. Hal K. Rothman, testimony in Navajo Nation and Watchman,et al. t; . State of NewMexico, September 11, 1990, U.S. District Court, Albuquerque,New Mexico.10. Judge Edwin L. Mechem, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, in NavajoNation and Watchman,et al . r . State of New Mexico, filed July 15, 1991.


8/16

HISTORIAN V. HISTORIAN * 45decision, iewed n avacuum, addiscriminatoryntent.Withhehistori-cal testimony, e hada pattern fsimilar ractice ating rom he 1600sthathadnumerouswentieth-centuryxamples.He couldasserthat heNewMexicanttitudeowardNavajos asas much legacy f beingbornthere as was a fondnessor greenchile. Substantiatedithhistoricalevidence-documents, ronouncements,ctions, nd mages a shakyassertionecame supportedllegationhatappearedo have omebear-ingon thecase.Pound lsoplayed issituation ell.Recognizinghepotentialamage,he soughto exclude hetestimony,atherhan nhancets credibilityycounteringt directly.f the udgeaccepted iscontentionhatprecedentdeterminedhatdiscriminationad o be personalather han tructuralor institutional,henthe testimony resentedittle threat o his client.Had hejudgeagreedwithhisargument,directederdictor hedefen-dantwouldhavebeenthe only ogical utcome.Yethadhe beenable o finda historian hocould rediblyesti* thatNew Mexican-Navajoelations adbeencordialincestatehood, oundmayhavebeen ableto negate he historicalestimony.Conflictingx-pertsoftencancel achotherout,foras theycontradictachother, heylose a largepartof the auraof authorityn whichexpert estimonyscloaked. n competitiveituations,estimony ecomesa personalityrcredibilityssue, withjudgeor juryacceptinghe testimonyf the ex-pert theyfindmorebelievable. n this case, thatstructure ouldhavethrownopen the question f context.As it was,the plaintifUsontextwent unchallengeds an account f the historic vents hatboreuponthe decision.As a result,after hejudgeacceptedhe plaintiffscenario,no otherversion o considerxisted, nd he decisioneemed foregoneconclusion.

An experienceditigator, oundmayhavemisseda wayto challengethe particularistoriann theWatchman case.He couldhavesought oexcludehe witness-insteadof histestimony on the basis hathis ex-pertiseon federalpolicywas not germane o the case. Thehistorianhimself ecognizedhepossibility,skingHowewhat heyshoulddo ifthateventualityccurred.Howe houghtt unlikelynd urned utto becorrect.But f Poundhadsoughthe expertise f another istorian hohad suggested ucha challenge,he case couldeasilyhaveturnedoutdifferently.nexperiencet reading istorians'esumesmayhavebeendefense ounsel's reatestweaknessnWatchmanv. New Mexico.Moreoften, historiansind themselves n opposite idesof a legalquestion,debating he significancef a specific et of information.nExecative Manor Inc. v. Kansas Gas and Electric, a case nvolvinghepollutionenerated ya historic oal-gasificationlant7hesamehistorianandanothermember f his academicepartment, . CraigMiner, oundthemselvesn oppositeidesof thecase.In this nstance,heirnterpreta-tionsdifferedreatly, ut hefactualnformationromwhich heygeneral-


9/16

46 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANizedwasessentiallyhesame.Their oncurrenceedto theresolutionfaprotractedndcomplicatedase.A PRP ase,EMl v. KGErevolvedroundheresponsibilityorproduc-tionof coalgas,the relationshipetweenKansas asandElectricKGE)and ts predecessorompanies,nd he question f whodemolishedhefacilitiesn the siteof thefirst oalgasplant n Wichita,Kansas. hecasebeganwhenExecutiveManornc.(EMI), hotelholding ompany,ur-chased vacantot on which o construct parkingarageorone of itshotels.During lanning,heydiscoveredhat he sitewascontaminatedby a rangeof toxins ncluding enzine.Clean-up ostingmorethan$500,000 asmandatedy law,butthe PRP lausen CERCLAllowedEMI o recoverhe cost rom nyexisting ompaniesesponsibleor hepollution.Historicalesearch asessentialo determine howas espon-sibleand f theywereextant.Thepropertyadbeenan ntegral art fthehistory fenergy eliveryin Wichita.nfact, hecaseshowed learlyhedevelopmentftheutilitystructure f Wichita s well as its transitionrom oalgas- commonlycalled rtificialas to naturalasandelectricity. nthe location f theplanned arking arage, he WichitaGas, Electric,Power,and LightCompanyonstructedn 1883a plant n which oalwasburnedo makethe kindof artificialasusedbefore he discoveryndwidespreadrans-mission f naturalas.Theprocesswascomplex, nd t created numberof toxicby-products.onetheless,ormore han wenty ears, series fcompaniesperatedheprimaryource fgaspowern Wichitarom hatlocation.By 1905,a newkindof fuelhadreachedWichita.Naturalaswas armore fficient ndreliablehan he artificialas t replaced. rtificialaswaswidelyunpopular;ts deliverywas so intermittenthat ocalwagsreferredo the streetlightst powered s lifeless,lobberinglinkers.''llTherush o embracehe new uelbegan.But heprocess equiredech-nology ndcapital.The echnologicalransformationevolvedround local ntrepreneur,J. O. Davidson, hoheaded syndicatehatboughtheexisting oalgascompany,Wichita lectricLightandPower, nd ts facilities.He fusedthemwithanother f his holding ompaniesornaturalas,andcreatedthe UnitedGasCompany. early imultaneously,avidsonecuredthirty-yearxclusiveight o deliver lectric owern thecity o match istwenty-yearoncessiono deliver asservice.Bythe middle f 1907,hehad he makingsf the utility mpire e soughto build.In 1909, Davidson egan o capitalize n his holdings.He enticedElectricBondand ShareCompany f New York EBSCo)o absorbUnitedGas and its parallel lectricity-producingounterpart, dison

11. Charles Coffin to Wichita City Council, August 12, 1886, no. 124, box 13, miscella-neous papers, City of Wichita.


10/16

HISTORIAN V. HISTORIAN * 47Electric,n exchangeorshares f stockn a newholding ompany, meri-canPower ndLight.American ower ndLight hencreated privatelyheld subsidiary,KansasGas and Electric, o run its facilitiesn southcentralKansas. lthough GEbegan sa private tility, t became ublicin the 1920s nd ater ookon the publicervice ompany ppellationocommon mongAmerican tilities. n 1990, t wasthe sole deliverer felectricityo south entralKansas.2In the process f developing . O. Davidson'stility mpire,artificialgaswassupplanted y natural as.Thenew fuelwascheaper ndmoreefficient;t traveledhroughmaller ipesunder reater ressure ndwasthereforeasier o deliver.Natural aswasabundantn Kansas, ndafter1905, mallerowns ndcities rom he Missouriordero thecentral artof the statewere hooked o natural as pipelines. n Wichitan 1907,natural aswasused o lighta spectacularheel hat lluminatednentirecitypark.A replacementrocess adbegun.3Although atural asofferedargreater eliabilityndbetterheatandlight, delivery o homesrequiredayingnew pipe. The large-diameterpipe throughwhichartificialaswasdeliveredwas ooweak o hold henatural as, delivered t a muchhigherpressure.As a result,an entirenew systemof mainshad to be laidunderneathhe streetsof Wichita.Thiswasa complicatedrocedurehat ookan undeterminedmount ftime. Nonetheless, revolutionn technologynddelivery ccurredn arelatively riefperiod f time.Before 905, oalgaswas he solesource fheatdelivered o Wichitaurnaces;y 1912, t hadbeen completelye-placedby natural as romnearbyields.The case revolved round he delivery f artificialas by the UnitedGasCompany. avidson'sompanylearly istributedrtificialas,butthe dateof cessation f deliverywasan importantpenquestionn thecase. Newspaperccountsndicatedhat he company nnouncedt hadceaseddeliveryn November 907,but he samepaper arried naccountof peopleprotestinghe terminationf theirservicenearly ne monthlater.4 In discovery,he process n which he opposingide earnswhatevidencewillbe used n a case,KGEproduced o recordso supporthenewspaper ccounts.The plaintifFs ttorneys,RobertDriscoll nd M.ElizabethKirklandf Stinson,Mag,andFizzell f Kansas ity,requestedanyrecords ertainingo cessation f the delivery f coal o the coalgasplant, nformationegardinghe removal f artificial as piping,much12. Hal K. Rothman, The First Coal-Gas Plant in Wichita: 132 N. Waco, (KansasCity:Executive Manor Inc., 1988); Report of H. M. Byllesby Company, 1909, KGE Archives,19. In 1992, KGE was purchased by Kansas Power and Light (KPL), which had previouslyonly offered natural gas in the Wichita area. Based in Kansas City, KPL was the largestutility in western Missouri and Kansas.13. Wichita Eagle, January30, 1907.14. Wichita Eagle, May 29, 1907; Wichita Eagle, September 5, 1907; E. D. Wilson to R.N. Dorr, October 14, 1907, #375, Box 35, miscellaneous papers, City of Wichita Clerk'sOffice; Wichita Eagle, November 10, 1907; Wichita Eagle, December 17, 1907.


11/16

48 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANlargerndiameterhannaturalaspipe, romWichita,ndanydocumen-tation howingnycommunicationhat stablishedpermanentessationof delivery fartificialas.Nonewas orthcoming.5Thecessation f delivery f artificialaswas one of the threemostimportantssues n the case.If KGE ould onclusivelyhow hat t hadneverdelivered rtificialas, ts liabilitymightbe limited n one majorpoint.But if no conclusiveatecouldbe established,hequestion e-mained pen.The wohistoriansirednthecaseassessedhenewspaperccountsnwhichKGE'sositionested.KGE's itness,senior istorianho pecial-ized nbusiness istory, cceptedhenewspaperccountsespite heircontradictions.e wasable o marshalvastarray fcircumstantialvi-dence,but no officialorporate ocumentso support iscontentions.EMI'switness,a youngernvironmentalistorianrainedn the eraofsuspiciousnesshat ollowedheWatergatecandal, asmore keptical.ndeposition, ereasonedhata companyhesizeof KGEhatwasable oproduce therdocumentsrom heUnitedGas ra includingheminutebooks f otherDavidson-ownedndoperatednergy ompaniescouldsurelyproduce omekindofdecommissioningocument.urthermore,hepointed ut hatKGE'shartern 1910 xpressly entionedrtificialasas a producthat hecompany asformedo offer.l6Oneof the threequestionseemed o turn ntheway nwhich istoriansnterpretources.Based ntheirbackground,xperience,ndperspective,he twohis-torians isagreed. heseniorpersonwaswilling o acceptnewspapertestimony t face value.Muchof his publishedwork, ncludingwohistories f Wichita, eliedon similar vidence.l7His experiencenbusiness istoryndicatedhata companyhatwas ryingo closedownits artificialasoperationnthe winter f1907-08wouldnotbe offeringthe sameservice n 1910unlesscoerced.Theenvironmentalistorianwasnotconvinced.He hadworkedwiththe samenewspapern otherprojects ndhad found t typicalof turn-of-the-centuryapers n itsboosterismndhyperbole.t functionedsa voice orbusiness, eport-ing at facevalue hecontentionsf prominent eoplewhilediscount-ing thosewho opposed hem. He recognizedhat the newspapersshowed pattern, ut wasuncomfortableith he lackoffurther ocu-mentation. e alsodiscoverednstancesnwhichUnitedGascouldnotdeliver dequate uantitiesf natural as,revealinghat he priceof animplemento utilize henew natural asmains xceededhe rangeofmostworking eople.This ed himto believe hetransitiono natural

15. RobertDriscoll o Hal K.Rothman, ugust 0, 1991.16. CraigMiner o DaveErickson f Blackwell, anders,Matheny,Weary,and Lom-bardi,re: Report,ExecutiveManor ase, October15, 1991, 14-19;deposition f Hal K.Rothman, MI t;. KGE, August 0, 1991.17. H. CraigMiner,Wichita:The Early Years, 1865-1880 (Lincoln:University f Ne-braska ress,1982) ndWichita:TheMagic City (Wichita:Wichita-SedgwickountyHistori-cal MuseumAssociation, 988).


12/16

HISTORIAN V. HISTORIAN * 49gas tookmoretime thanKGEasserted ndofferedhe possibilityhatsome artificial as was sold to customerswell into 1910.It.seemedpreposterouso himthat KGEcouldproduce report rom1912 hatshowedhe plantwasnot operating,ut couldnot findanyof the manykindsof records uchas cessation f coaldelivery,decommissioningfthe plant,a report roman inspector, r somethinglse that wouldconclusivelystablish dateof termination.Without orroboration,ecouldnotaccept henewspaperccountss primaacie vidence.The opposing istorian orkedo explain way his realitywithsomesuccess.He pointedout someof the problemswith a skepticaline ofreasoning, singevidence hat suggested ddedweight o his circum-stantial rgument.He noted hat n 1909,J. O. Davidsonaid hatthecompanywouldhaveto build a new artificialas plantto offersuchservice,pointedout that during old snaps n 1909,the salesof coaland oil stoves,whichdid not use any product eliveredby pipeline,increased,nddisplayedtherdamagingircumstantialvidence.l8 utthe historianor KGEdid not produce cessation ocument f anykind, eavinghe companypento charges hat t suppressedotentialdynamite.

An ironic ituation eveloped.The two historiansgreedon the evi-dencethatwasrelevant.Reports y eachof themcitedthesamedocu-ments ndestablishedhe samebasic hronology,nd heywere n agree-ment overthe eventsthat couldbe documented.One evencited theworks fthe other nhis report.Theydisagreedbout he meaningf thepiecesofthe puzzle hatweremissing.Twootherpointswere mportanto thecase.TherelationshipetweenUnitedGas and KGEwas crucial. f EMI couldshowthatKGEandUnitedwere n essence he same ompany ithdifferent ames, ucces-sorshipmightbe established.Under he PRPrules,sucha relationshipwouldmakeKGEresponsibleorthe actions f United,renderinghequestionf KGE's roductionf coalgas mmaterial.n this nstance,hesenior istorianmarshalledisvastexperiencenbusiness istoryo showthat the absorption n the wordsof KGE's irst chairmanf theboard-of UnitedGaswasa typicalmaneuverf the time,and he cre-ationof KGEby ElectricBondandShare fNew Yorkmade hatcom-pany,notKGE, ts successor.KGE plitaway romEBSCoduring he1920swhen t became publicly eldutility.9Theenvironmentalistorian as essconcerned ith his ssue,recog-nizing hat romhisclient'spointof view, onesuccessor ithfigurativedeep ockets'>asasgoodasanother. uthedidshow hat heboards fdirectorsf UnitedandKGEwere nterlocking,ocalofficialsemainedthe sameafter he creation f KGE,and KGE raded n the goodwill

18. Miner,October15, 1991report,17-21.19. Miner,October15, 1991report,20-31.


13/16

50 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANestablishedyUnitedGas.20herewassuicient evidenceitherway,asituationhat alled or udicial iscretionnd eRattorneysnboth idesof amultimillionollar ispute ncomfortable.The hird oint fcontentionnvolvedhequestionfdemolitionfthefacilities.EMIpurchasedvacantot fromwhichallsurfacetructureshadbeenremoved. anbornire nsurance aps howedhat he planthadbeenintact n 1934,but by 1940,hadbeendemolished. anbornmaps nspire onfidence;eitherhistorianequiredurther roof f thedateofdemolition. GEowned hepropertyrom1910until1946.A1-thoughhehistorianorKGE oughtoarguehatduringhetimeperiod,thedecisions eremadebyEBSCo, noneofthethreepoints, herewaslittledoubthatKGEwasculpable.2lIn thiscase, bothplaintiffnddefendant erehard-headed.espitenumerouspportunitiesorsettlementhatwouldhavecosteachsomemoneybutminimizedutlayorattorneys,xperts, ndother xpenses,both idessought o winthecaseoutright. his onfoundednumber fthe attorneysnd bothhistorians.n aneffort o spread nypotentialliability mong ny otherpossible arties,KGEaddedEBSCo,Boise-Cascade,whichhadpurchasedhe companyhatowned he propertyafter1946, he CityofWichita, nd heheirs o the trust et up by thepost-1946wners s ancillary efendants.hisaction llowed hemtospreadotentialiabilitymong number fpossiblentities nd ignaledanunwillingnessocompromise.n lateAugust f 1991, hecase eemedto be headedora benchrial.ButKansasdministrativeracticenlegal ases orced compromise.Beforerial nKansas,uitsofthisnature rehandled yamagistratehohasvast eeway.Themagistratenterpretshe rulesunderwhich eposi-tionsoccur nddeterminesther mportantttributesfthe case.Afterreviewinghe evidence,particularlyhehistorians'eports, he magis-trate alledheprincipalsnd heirattorneysogether.Hetold hem hatbecausehecase hould esettledwithoutbench rial, heevidencewasconclusive,nd hehistoriansgreed n mportantoints, e wasgoing omandatepre-trialettlement. henhelocked veryonen a roomwithhimand old hem hatnoonewasgoing nywherentil heyreached naccord.More han welvehours ater, hecasewas ettled nd he deci-sion ealedrompubliccrutiny.92

In thiscase, theinterpretiveestimonyf the twohistoriansecameirrelevant.Whatwas mportant asthat heyagreed nenough f thepoints ffact, rom hedates faccuratelyhronicledventso thetimeof20. Rothman, 132N. Waco, 1.21. SanbornFire Map orWichita,Kansas, 940, NewYork: anbornnsurance om-pany, 1940),9. This map s available n microfilmn the AblahLibrary f WichitaStateUniversity;Miner,October 5, 1991report,39-40.22. M. ElizabethKirkland,elephone onversation ith Hal K. Rothman,October 0,

1991.


14/16

HISTORIAN V. HISTORIAN * 51demolitionfstructuresntheproperty,oconvincehemagistratehatacourtroomrialwasunnecessary.espiteobstinatelients,hehistorianswereable otell aclear noughtory ocompel settlement.Perhapsmoremportant,othhistorians aintainedlevelofcredibil-itythathelped esolvehecase.Thehistorianor heplaintiffdidotseekoutKGEastheculprit,butrather resentedhehistory fthepropertyunder ts various wners.ThisgaveKGEmuchof the informationtneeded o identify therpotentiallyiable ntities.Thehistorianorthedefenseaffirmediscounterpart'sssertionftheexactdateofdemoli-tion,doing ignificantamageohisclient's opesofescapinghesitua-tionwithoutiability, utpreventingnunpleasantourtroomurpriseorKGE.Unlikemany therkinds fexpertwitnesses,hehistoriansnKGEv. EMI functionedshistoriansatherhanasadvocates. heirwork nthiscasewillmakeheattorneysorboth idesmoreikely ohirehistori-ans nfuture ases.Thatcredibilityndperceptionfobjectivenalysis, owever nfash-ionablensomequarters,san mportantartofmaintaininghepositionofhistoriansn thecourtroom.sarbitersf thepast,historiansaveapeculiarunction.Thepublicandeventhe legalsystemgenerally er-ceivehistory s anobjective etoffacts hat s staticnnature;hedocu-mentary haracterf muchhistoricalvidenceandthe reliance f thelegalprofession n a similarmodeof proving ssertionsnhanceshatperception.nthecourtroom,istoriansecomeheprismhrough hichthepast sreflected.They anshape heway nwhichhecourtwillviewthe events n question.Thenature f historicalvidence uggestshattheir nterpretationsobjective.nreality, fcourse, t ismerely morenuancedndevaluatedorm finterpretation.Yetotherdisciplinesailto displayhe illusionof objectivityn themannern whichhistoriansreso successful. sychiatricestimony asbeensuspect ince ts introduction.rom hecaseofCharlesGuiteau,JamesGarfield'sssassin,o theAlgerHisscase,evaluatorsfthemindhavereliedontheoryo interprethenecessarily essyworkingsfthehuman syche.Anthropologistsallprey osimilarroblems.heattemptoftheMashpeendiansobecomeafederallyecognizedribe ellshortlargelybecauseof the inabilityf the NativeAmericans'xpertso linkwhat heyperceivedwithwhat heycoulddocument.Assertionsboutthenature fIndianribes eemed uzzyandamorphous.Worse till ntheallegedlympartialourtroomenue,theanthropologistshotesti-fiedforthe Mashpeexpressedlearly rticulatedosmologieshatas-serted hat heIndians adbeenunfairlyisadvantagedndweresome-howmorallyuperiorotheiropponents.heyhad tudiedheIndiansolongthattheyseemed o losetheirscholarlyistance.Asa result, headvocacyuilt ntoeverystageof theirargumentanghollowo a localjudgeand urywhoperceivedheworldn adifferentmannerndhadaninvestmentn the statusquo.Theexpertwitnessesailed o set up a


15/16

52 * THE PUBLIC HISTORIANcontextnwhich o framehe predicamentf the Mashpee. espite hegood ntentionsf those upportingheNativeAmericans,he courtde-cidedagainstrantingheMashpeeribaltatus.23But here s a lesson nthis orhistorians.omehistorianserceivehepastasmorehan bodyofevidence, ndncreasinglyhefield s chargedwithpoliticallectricity.omepositionsreseenas morallycceptable,and hosewhodonotadhereothem un herisk fostracizationnd apri-ciouspersonalriticism.omehave eltthepressure.mportantcholarssuch sCarlDegler ndKathrynish klardmittedhatntheSears ase,theyrefusedo testifyorSears ecause they islikedhallengingeministorthodoxy. thers mbraceduchallegedlymoral istinctionsbout hepast.As mportantscholarf NativeAmericanssJamesAxtell asbeenquoted ssaying e refuseso testi* against ativeAmericanso matterhow tronghecaseagainsthem.Othersmay ailorheir ommentsofittheslant ftheir lient.Anotheristinguishedistorian,Wilbur .Jacobs,argues hatsome historiansunction s profiteers,outinelyestifyingagainstNativeAmericanshorarely anafford igh-pricedonsultants.24No matterhowclear heevidence n anysituation,t canalways einterpretedn myriadways.In thesetwo cases,other nterpretationsmight avebeenvalid, ouldhavebeenadvanced,nd ould avealteredthe decisions.But n bothcases,historicalestimony orked ecausetreflectedherealitieshecourt lready nderstoodnd eemedo expressa credible ersion f thepast.Despite nstancesn whichhistoriansndtheirworkhurt he sidethatemployedhem, hesetraits rewhat helegalprofessionequiresf historians.Theproblemorhistorianseginsf toomany istorianslly hemselveswithoneside or another,ne causeoranother.Historianshopresentdifferenterspectivesnsetsofevidencendweigh hemarebetter hanthosewhoadvocate neperspectiveranother.Whatmakes istorianssuccessfuln cases ikeEM1v . KGE is that he deologicalontent ftheirtestimonys subsumedn their nterpretationf the evidence, ot bra-zenlystatedas a bold-facedremise.All testimony,ikeall history,scolored ythe mediumhrough hich t is transmitted.

23. CharlesE. Rosenberg, he Trial of the AssassinGuiteau: Psychiatryand Law in theGilded Age (Chicago:University f ChicagoPress,1968);Eric F. Goldman,The CrucialDecade and After: America, 1945-1960 (New York:RandomHouse,1960)101-32; JackCampisi,The Mashpee Indians: Trtbe on Trial (Syracuse,N.Y.:SyracuseUniversity ress,1991).Campisi'sdvocacys particularlylear n his recounting f the trial,when he pre-sumesthat his assumptions bout he natureof the past are the onlvones thathold. Theargument e assertshe deliveredn testimonyailed o takeaccount hehistorical ature fIndian-Whiteelations, ubstitutinghe unsubstantiatedlaimsof lndiansand a long andseemingly selessdebateaboutwhat onstituted tribe or he kindofinformationecessaryto prove heircontentionsn a courtroom. art f thiswasclearly he resultof the differencesin the waythat awyers ndanthropologistsefineanddemonstrateruth.Partof it was heanthropologist'snability o framehis argument sanythingmore hanan advocate'stance.24. Katherineellison, Historyn the Courtroom:he SearsCase n Perspectixe, hePublic Historian 9 (Fall 1987),9-19; AlbertL. Hurtado, PublicHistoryand the NativeAmerican, ontana: The Magazineof Western History40 (Spring 990) 8-69.


16/16

HISTORIAN V. HISTORIAN * 53Theviabilityfthehistoriannthecourtroomepends nthecredibil-ityofthediscipline.nareas fmedicine,omephysicians ake areers

outofexpertwitnessing,outinelyakingasesandespousingheclient'sperspective.Theresulthasbeen a vastdecline n standingf medicalexpertwitnessesn the courtroom;n cases nvolving hysicianst hasbecome outineoaskwitnesses nthestand bouthenumber ftimestheyhave estifiednsimilarases.Physiciansay lsobeasked boutheamount f timetheyspendanalyzinghe informationromwhich heyderive heirconclusions.nthesesituations,astexperienceasbecomealiability,naffrontocredibility.Whilehistoriansacenosuchdilemma tthis ime, hepotentialxists.Therangeofissues hatrequire istoricalontent rcontexts growing,andmoreandmorehistoriansee participationn thelegalsystemasaviablemeanso impartheirknowledge. utthecourtrooms a difficultplaceforhistorians. einganexperton pastevents s notalwaysuffi-cient.Historians ustbeable opresent credibleersion fthepast,ausable ast,basedonclearand ubstantiablevidence.nthemost rickypartofthecourtroomorhistorians,hatevidencemust quarewiththeinterpretationfthejudgeand urywithout anderingrcateringotheneedsoftheclient orseemingodoso.Thecourtroomsnotaplace orhistoricalheoryor methodology. oris a mererecitationf the factsadequate.Historiansn thecourtroomrearbitersf information,on-duits ounderstandinghecontextnwhichhedecisions fthepast ookplace.Thecredibilityf theprofessionequireshat n thecourtroom,historiansemainhistorians. shistoriansecome ommonplacen thecourtroom,etaininghatcredibility illbecomemoredifficult.

rothman - historian v historian

Documents