Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1860-08-22

day mornings Pass, but was crowded out
by the unusually large telegraphicdispstc
We do not see opy, thing q che partaidiss
claimsr of heSQ4ssfte that should Cause ~
to suppress this,Ses & does not Shsnge itsl
views od the msin point tbsj jdrsdictioncfl
the Coroner, and as to the rest it is rather a
disclaimer of responsibility than of the spirit
of the article.1
We might have known that the Gazette
would have found fault because the Coroner
did.not-push his inquiries further into the
causes of the homicide of, Browne. eve
might have known also thatit would do SO
for the very reason whioh IL assigns G that Is,
Che can ask questions, and, insiss that they
should be answered, that would be ruled
out elsewhere" That's the law has hedged
about trials, which involve the guilt or the
rights of any parties with safeguards, the
growth of the experience Of centuries and
the perfection of human wisdom, for the
purpose of protecting innocence, and dis
tinguisbing evidence from rumor, suspicion
and scandal therefore, the Gazette wants
this inquiry into the guilt Of parties made
by tribunal which was never created for
the purpose, and consequently would not be
subject to legal rules. In other words, it
wants an illegal investigation made, because
twill not be governed by the rules of law.
And why? Because the Gazette has atheory
of the case, involving scandal and crimi-
nality, which, with unparalleled barbarity,
it spreads before the public in advance Of
trial, and it fears that the details would be
ruled out by O legal investigations. Nothing
was shown by the Coroner's inquest that
warranted newspaper in giving any theory
ofthis homicide. To spread, as the Gazette
has done, the suspicious of loose imagina-
tion before the public, in advance Of trial.
charging crlminality on the living and the
dead, is more than savage atrocity. The
guilt Of any of the parties in this affair is not
o subject for newspaper discussion. 1t is to
beinvestigated in the proper tribunal. We
commented on the manner in which parties
had been compromised, and characters en-
dangered, by the Coroner's inquest exceed
ing its jurisdiction. That could properly
inquire only into the manner in which the
deceased came TO his death. When it passed
this limit, and inquired into the motives and
guilt of fparties, it could not stop short of the
most thorough investigation of both sides of
the case and of every particle of evidence
bearing on it that could be produced. This
aCoroner's inquest could not do. 1t did not
attempt it. Itonly tried to go little way
into the case, just to get at the facts, that's
all; as ifto get at the facts did not require
the most searching trial. with all the aids
and forms of law. ar. 81 f-f,i- fsp,us
ANY partial investigation could only leave
parties exposed to unjust suspicion. We
have no doubt that the Coroner,s inquest
was prosecuted from the best motives. 1t is
the established custom for coroners to ex-
ceed their jurisdiction, and ours only fol-
lowed the custom. We illustrated the i'm
propriety and wrong of the custom, by the
| position in which the illegitimate and partial
inquiries left parties in this instance. And
to illustrate the justness and force of our
comments, and the frightfui wrong of the
system, the Gazette takesup the statements
we viii not call them testimony, for there
were none of the safeguards nor exactness Of
testimony improperly ELECTED at the in
quest, and out of them and an Imagination
which thinks it is doing God service by sus-
pectipg the worst of humanity, it makes a
theory of this affair, charging criminality on
the living and the dead, and then it laments
that the Coroner did not pursue the matter
further, SO as to elicit something to sustain
its theory. ot-H ia.. E.a