New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-01
THE GRAND JURY'S INDICTMENT.

After the communications which passed be-
| tween the Grand Jury and Judge Fitzgerald on
| Monday an Indictment against the president and
| directors OF the Newly ork, New-Haven and
| Hartford Railroad Company was generally ex-
pected but not the Indictment that has been
found The legal verbiage is even more dis
tressing in this instance than usual Reduced to
few words it seems to say that the persons in
iicted are responsible for the fact that the COM
pany heated its cars by means of stoves on the
day of the disaster as it had done before and
still continues to do, in violation OF statute
of this State, and hence are guilty OF INSIDE
mcanor. Nothing is said about the loss OF lie
in the tunnel collision, and OF course nothing
about manslaughter.
We have no assurance that the Grand jury
intended by this indictment to convey the sug-
gestion that the community must share the re-
sponsbility for this disaster, inaSmuch as the
company has been permitted to defy the law OF
the State but there is considerable force In
that suggestion. Our Legislature enacted
statute forbidding the use of stoves on railroads
more than fifty miles in length. The New
York, New Haven and Hartford Company OBJ
tanned legal opinion that it did not need to
obey this law, since it did not operate fifty miles
of road within the limits of this State. This
assumption was generally criticised and con-
demned, but the company continued to do as 1t
pleased and nothing was done TO hinder 1t.
A fatal disaster finally occurred within our
boundaries, public opinion was aroused, Coro-
ner's Jury held the officers of the company re-
sponsble for the loss of life, and in due course
the Grand Jury tool, up the case. If anybody
Is disposed to lind fault with the result OF its
deliberations he ought at least to consider that
If the question of liability under the law had
been settled promptly there might have been no
lives lost. No step was taken in behalf OF the
people to ascertain whether the company was
well or i'll advised. The presumption was that
it was committing continuous misdemeanor,
and its officers ought to have been prosecuted
as soon as possible after the law went into Ell
feet. The law was just as effectually violated
while trains were running smoothly as when
they came into collision with fatal consequences
but the offending company was put to no in
convenience on that account.
1t is to he presumed that the point in dispute
will now be tested When the indicted officials
come to trial their defence will doubtless be that
they did not violate the law of New-YOrk. This
is a question which we shall be glad to see
settled at this late day, but it ought to have
been settled long ago. If an offence is proved,
and if ii is held to be serious, the indictment IS
sufficient for the purposes of a severe punish
ment. The penalty for misdemeanor may be
a fine of one dollar and it may be imprisonment
for year. Probably nobody cherishes against
the indicted men an indignation so fierce that it
would not be appeased by their Incarceration
for a neTiOd of twelve months. In fact, we
imagine it would be safe to assume that nobody
expects or really desires TO see them in duress
for even so much as one day. We cannot ac
cept the contention of some of those who have
spoken for the company, that so long as its
officers live up to their lights they are beyond
the reach of the law. 1t is essential that men
who accept an obligation should be held to the
performance of it. But in this case it is proper
to consider that, however false the companys
Interpretation Of the law may have been, this
community did nothing more than protest
against 1t, where legal action was duty.