Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-06-14
JUDGE BINGHAM's DECISION.
The Court Room Crowded to Hear tho Re
suit Of the Case.

The Court Room Crowded to Hear the Re-
suit OF the Case.
Chief Justice Bingham yesterday announced
that he would render his decision on the
petition for mandamus made BY Col Ainsworth
him to allow the presence Of Col. Ainsworth
and his attorney at the inquest and to
cross-examine witnesses, at 10 o'clock this
morning. The court in general
erm was crowded at that hour with interested
parties. Col. Ainsworth was not present, but
his counsel, Mr.. Ross Perry. was early on the
scene. number Of the clerks from
the wrecked building were ON hand, but the
ney and Mr.. Taggart sat at one table
representing the deputy coroner, while
Mr. Harry E. Davis and Judge Jere
Wilson occupied prominent places as the rep
resentatives Of tho contractor and tho clerks
it was 1890 before Judge Bingham took
his seat on the bench and began to
deliver his opinion. He was listened
to carefully the spectators crowding up
close to the ral in order to catch the low
tones of his voice. From the start it
was gathered that the effect OF the
decision would be to dismiss the petition on
the ground that the deputy coroner had no
right to conduct an inquest As this
became clear a ripple ran over the
court. The importance Of the decision as
overturning an old custom was immediately
recognized and the complications which might
arise through past inquests we're discussed in
low voices.
Text OF the Decision.
The chief justice said: Tho examination Of
the law clearly establishes in my mind what
suppose never had any doubts about, and no
other lawyer-that the coroner in hold
to- ipnn anfo s,,I;
holding that inquest he is holding
judge, and acts judicially. Now think it is
unknown that any officer who is clothed with
judicial authority by the law can deputize that
judicial power to be exercised by another per-
son whom he may select. That cannot be
done. The Jaw might provide, and it is
ton to enact law by which the coroner might
appoint deputy, and that law might confer
upon the person judicial power and authority
to exercise Judicial power and to hold these
coroner's courts. But to that it seems
to me evident that it could not be done. He
might appoint an assistant a deputy who
could perform ministerial duties Whether
he can do that or not there may be some aues-
ton, but the recognition of an assistant to
the coroner by an appropriation bill might pos
sibly be construed to be sufficient legal recoy-
milton of such an officer as to legitimatize his
ministerial acts-acts that he performs for
the coroner. which are in their very nature
ministerial-but he cannot be clothed with
judicial power and authorized to hold court.
So it occurs to me that this is a very i'm
portant matter, because it involves the pro-
priety of the actions of the gentleman
who ls acting deputy cor oner in this Dis
trict holding these inquests. 1t affects and
relates to the right Of any attempt Of that
kind, and hence it is not q thing to be over
looked. Having arisen in this proceeding it is
necessary for US to notice it and pass upon 1t.
feel quite clear that l have made such an
mind that nothing but expressed T iegis. G