Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-14

What the Lawyers said About Col. Ains
worth's Petition.

afternoon in the Court Of General Term wher
Cher Justice Bingham began the hearing on thu
petition made by Col. Ainsworth for
manoamus on Coroner Schaeffer. He
was however, represented by Mr.
Ross Perry, and many Of the CLERKS from thu
wrecked building were present and one Of thu
coroner's jury.
DIR. schaeffer was represented BY Distrie,
Attorney Birney. Many LAWYERS occupied
chairs and watched the proceedings carefully.
THE QUESTION A NEW ONE
The question was considered new one ana
IS settling future lines of policy
FOR coroners' inquests Ex-Commissioner
fer was not present when Mr.. Perry arose and
Tor Dr. Ainsworth made the opening.
MR.. PERRr's OPENING.
Mr.. Perry, for Col Ainsworth. explained the
motive Of the petition, and said that only ats
late hour yesterday lad he decided to take the
step outlined in it,
He said that in the shortnese of the Tina
since late the day before. when the peu-
ton was decided upon, he had been unable 70
ma any authority for such officer here as the
deputy coroner. IL there no authority for
such an officer. then the petitioner would have
to employ other means to obtain the relief
sought. He assumed, however. that the dis
trict attorney could show authority for such
an officer or deputy coroner and upon that
presumption he would proceed
Mr. Perry then read the petition OF Col Aims
worth, ms published in The STAR Of yesterday.
DEPUTY CORONER ENTERS.
During the reading DR.. Schaeffer entered the
court accompanied by Assistant District Attor-
ney Tsggart
Chief Justice Bingham said that he had mot
examined the petition, and District Attorney
Birney announced that, acting for the deputy
coroner, as his counsel. and not as the attoroney
OF the United States, he had fled
general demurrer II would
be well for the court TO recognize the true po-
sition OF the petitioner. He had not been
lndicialiy accused, but only in the newspaper
IN, Inc coroners Investigation was not . trial but
IKE an investigation Of a grand jury.
NO ONE HAD THE RIGHT TO ApPEAR.
or course no one had the right to appear be-
fore the grand jury with counsel. and in this
case he commended the presence Of Col. Aims
worth was matter alone in the discretion Of
the coroner. Under the English authorities
the coroner could, IL he 30 deemed advisable,
exclude all persons. There could be
no accusation until the coroner's
inquiry was concluded, and then it
/ would be too late for the accused to appear and
cross-examine the witnesses. 1t was true that
there had been cases where such rights had been
accorded but ii was obvious that ID was best
that the whole question should be left to the dis
erection OF the coroner. No arbitrary rule should
be laid down granting such privilege. Indeed, it
was often advisable TO conduct such inquiries
in strict privacy.
Often the publicity attending coroner's in
quest defeated the ends Of justice instead Of Sc
curing those ends. In New York case, where
the prisoner complained that had be been per-
United TO appear with counsel and witnesses ct
the coroner's inquest he could have shown hia
innocence, and that il was therefore q hardship
to commit him for trial, the court, however,
stood.
Mr.. Perry-But in that case the court found
statutory authority for 80 ruling.
MI Birney-wel, IL you can show that Ill
right But there il is.
Mr.. Perry explained that, unfortunately, he
did not have the New York statute. but felt
sure that his statement coald be verified upou
an examination Of them by the court
OTHER AUTHORITIES QUOTED.
Mr. Birney then quoted other authorities In
support OF his position, and said the rslator,
Col. Ainsworth, might or not be accused, and
why he or anyone else should have the right, mot
the privilege, Of appearing he desired,
was beyond his (Birney'O comprehensive
The coroner's inquiry was not trial, and until
II had been decided otherwise the appearance
at the inquiry Of Col Answorth was Q mAssa
OF mere privilege and not one Of right.
AUTHORITY OF THE DEPUTY ooaoxxn.
Mr.. Perry said he had expected 70 hsar ths
district attorney quote authorities in support
Of such an officer O. the dep
uty coroner Of the pirtr,c< h
there was no such officer and the other Ode
had not shown that there was, then al the cots
Of the deputy coroner were invalid, and n b
assumed any Judicial functions he could b
| prosecuted.
Mr.. Birney explained that the stains Of the
| had fre heeu nm fiou "A ia 49,
and he was frank enough to state that he was not
aware OF any specific statutory authority an
thorizing the deputy coroner to act in the abb
sence Of the coroner. And, further, II Mr..
Perry SO desired. he was quite willing that the
present petition be dismissed.
Mr.. Perry said that IL the court did dismiss
il on that ground he hoped the court woulA
specifically state the grounds Of his decision-
TEE SCENE OF MONDAY DESCRIBED.
Passing by the question Of the authority Of
Deputy Coroner Schaefer TO act, Mr.. Perry do
scribed the scene Of Monday afternoon at ths
inquest, and said il was deplorable that here
in the District Of Columbia at this late
day, it remained for . mob or such
grave occasion to threaten the
life Of q man, who had been accused only BY the
daily press, an accusation which began in the
first extras Of the newspapers describing the
sad calamity.
JUROR ARRAIoSEp.
Mr.. Perry, again referring to the inquest
yesterday, severely arraigned the Juror. who,
he commended. forgot his sworn duty. and who.
he believed was greatly responsible for the dis
graceful and deplorable scene. Had the court
of inquiry been q lawful one no sush incident
would have cast such blot upon the fair name
of the people Of the District.
Abiding to the authorities quoted BY Mr..
Birney, Mr.. Perry said those referred 10 bv
Mr.. Birney did not rest upon adjudicsted
cases. but were merely the conclusions Of
English text writer's. he said he would mos
weary the court by reading many authorities,
but would hand the court . list Of those upon
which he relied, which he thereupon sent 70
Chief Justice Bingham.
Mr. Birney, in concluding the arguments, again
reverted to the fact that Q coroner's inquiry
was, like that of . grand jury, ex parte one,
and was in no sense such . trial as warranted the
appearance Of any one with counsel and witnesses.
Indeed, as he had first contended, the whole
question was one in the discretion Of the COR
oner alone. Mr. Perry, he claimed, bad not
shown to the contrary, and therefore NE
petition should be dismissed In tAs
present instance the presence Of Dol
Ainswor.h had been found to be n OBJ
struction to fair and full investigation by the
coroner's Jury, and for that reason the coroner
| was fully authorized 70 exclude him But
| more than that Col Ainsworth bad not ys6