The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-03-20

What, then, IL the manifest duty OF the au-
thoritiesP Certainly 1t Is their duty to hold
an inquest. Why has this not been done =?
The parents and relatives of the child, as
we'll as the citizens of Weston generally,
profess to be anxious for an inquest. An
inquest has not been held and wby9 1t
seems to us that the excuses given for this
neglect are evaslve and peurile. The cor
respondent of the Manchester Journal says
1t is because of "a question of jurisdiction
between the town officers" Our inform
ant, of the other day, said the grand juror
had been requested not ito stir In the mat
ter"--but this Is denied, and 1t Is not of
much consequence because the town grand
juror has nothing to do with instituting in
quests Our correspondent, this morning,
SAYS that ''the town authorities have not
refused or delayed to investigate the mat
ter further than by the taking Of time for
counsel" Pray tell us what is the need of
taking counsel" in the matter What
possible ''question of jurisdiction between
the town officers" can there be p? When is
the time for holding inquests-before or
after burial, now or some day in the distant
future, when the facts are fresh In the
memory or when time has blunted the re-
collection obscurcd the facts ? The theo-
ry--and such should be the fact-of in
quests is that they are taken ION view of
the body" This being SO, the case being
wrapped in mystery, grave suspicious being
excited, and ugly rumors being circulated,
1t was the bounden duty-was it not ?-of
the proper authorities to institute an inquest
at once Who were the proper authorities
In this the statutes are so plain that there
can be no necessity of delay for "taking
counsel" or any possible "question of jul
risdction between the town officers.
Prior to 1856, the duty of holding inquests
was made obligatory in all cases of death
by casualty or violence" but that year II
was left discretionary with the selectmen,
or any one of them, to order an inquest,
when, in their opinion "the public good re-
quired it," The selectmen, or one of them,
and they alone, have the power There is
no question of jurisdiction. One or all OF
the selectmen of Weston can have an In
quest held, if II Is desired and the public
good requires it, And does it not require
it? Let the facts answer. To be sure, i
is discretionary power, but none the les
| to be wisely used for the public good
is. in this case, discretion that becomes
obligatory. If there ever was case tina
required investigation, it is this. "Th'
public good requires it," The fair fame o.
Vermont demands it. If Hessliton is limo
cent, as we trust he is, there ought to b'
an inquest and investigation. If he is gull
ty--but, certainly there's no question which
way duty would point in such case. TIL,
Selectmen of Weston are criminally Degli
gent in the matter. They are bound to &C
in the matter. From what we know Of tn
good people of Weston, we believe tina
they will hold their officers to'a strict &C
countability in the premises.
Since the above was put in type, we learl
that the body of the child referred to ba
been exhumed by order of j. Q. A. Cragin
justice of the peace, acting as coroner, AM
that post-mortem examination was mad
by Drs. Edmunds, Putnam, and Wright
The result of their examination is not, q
yet made public.