Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1894-06-24
DIFFER.
CORONER TAYLOR AND THE Pnysi-
CLAN TO THE JAIL At VARIANCE.
The Right Of the Former to Hold Inquests
ON Inmates OF Richmond's Prison
Questioned

Dr. william II. Taylor. the Coroner.
and DR.. w. 8. Gordon. Physician to the
City Jail. differ as 10 the right Of the
former to hold inquests on prisoners dying
In the jail, and It has been announced
that DR.. Gordon will bring the matter
before Judge Witt of the Hastings Court
for judicial determination.
At the inquest lately held by the Coro-
ner on the body OF Mrs. Elizabeth Colgen.
who died In the jail while confined there
as iunatic, DR.. NJ. w. Peyser appeared
as the representative Of DR.. Gordon. and
on his behalf protested against the In
quest. DR.. Gordon Is not In the city. but
| II is understood that the grounds OF
protest were that the Code OF Virginia
did not direct that inquests should be held
on persons dying In jail, that 1t was no
more reasonable to hold inquests on DR..
Gordon's patients who died In jail than
on his patients who died at their homes.
and that the publication OF the verdict
of the jury stating that no blame shouid
be attached to the officers OF the jail
who had the deceased persons In charge.
acter. as implying that under some cir
cumstances such blame might attach.
THE CORONER INTERVIEWED.
When Coroner Taylor was seen about
the matter yesterday he said that ne
did not consider that these objections
were valid and proceeded TO hold the
inquest He did not think that inquests
at the jail could reflect upon DR.. Gordon.
unless they should develop the fact that
he was In some way blamable. No blame
has ever been attached to him heretofore.
Still. sail the Coroner. he was not pre-
pared to assume that none can ever be al
tached to him hereafter. for he was far
from sure that any man was altogether
Incapable Of error. nor could he ADMIT
as a general principle that inquests must
not be held because they might hurt
some ones feelings or reputation.
As to the analogy between man In
Jail and a man out of jail said the Coro-
ner: "a man In jail Is not closely COM
parable with a man out OF jail. the man
out of Jail, or his friends for him, can
select or not, as he pleases, any doctor
as his physician, but the man in jail has
no such choice. The State forces the
prisoner TO receive the ministrations oil
the iail physician. Under such circum-
stances II Is incumbent upon the state
to inquire whether these ministrations
have been properly performed"
AS TO THE CODE.
ct is true" said DR.. Taylor, that the
Code does not specifically direct that in
quests shall be held on persons dying in
jail. but neither is 1t specific In regard
to many other instances where inquests
are obviously proper. 1t leaves much to
the Judgment of the Coroner But. on
the other hand, Mayo's Guide which
Is the Interpreter of the law, ana the
book of directions for coroners, expressly
tells them that they must hold inquests
on persons who die in Jail, and explicitly
says that 1t is the duty of the Jailer TO
notify the coroner of such deaths"
Coroner Taylor observed that he was
too well aware OF the fact that the
meaning OF the law is not to be hastily
arrived at by the canons OF common
sense and the ordinary rules Of English
composition and rhetoric TO feel perfectly
sure that these Instructions are as plain
as they seem to be, yet he has ventured
TO construe them in the way which every
body who is not "A lawyer Is oDilgen
TO do. and has acted in accordance with
this construction ever since he has been
Coroner. as his predecessors did before
him. Nor did any jail physician before
DIR. Gordon ever object either 10 tnl'
construction OF the law or TO the pro-
priety of such a law.
AGREE ON ONE POINT.
Referring 70 the fact that DIR. Gordon
is understood TO make the point that ii
the above construction of the law was
correct inquests should be held ON prison.
ers dying In the penitentiary as well as
on those dying in the Jail, DR.. Taylor
said he agreed fully with DIR. Goreon on
that point. Years ago he submitted the
matter to the Attorney-General OK the
State. who decided that this view was
correct. Accordingly. for time he did
inquire into deaths at the penitentiary,
in fact till he was forbidden to do so by
the arbitrary command Of Governor KEN |
per.
DR.. Taylor further stated that he
thought DIR. Gordon had not considered
that his authority over the jail by virtue |
of his office as It's physician Is quite
limited, and that the conduct Of the CITY
Sergeant, his deputies, and his other
subordinates should be subject OF In
curry even II the inerrancy of the physi- |
clan should be taken for granted.
NO OBJECTION FROM OTHERS.
"These officials" said Dr. Taylor, mot |
wlthstanding that inquests are Of more |
moment TO them than they are likely 10 |
be TO the physician, are not the ones who |
object Indeed they take an opposite |
view OF the case. feeling that II they have |
properly met the requirements OF their |
position the verdict of a jury is a COM |
mendaton. and may at times be vindi- |
cation" That an inquiry in their direc- |
ton at least is most necessary and whole |
some. DR.. Taylor assents, was made I'M |
mistakably evident some years ago by a |
memorable instance.
DIR. Taylor remarked In conclusion that, |
being himself a physician, he is naturally |
solicitous TO have 1t believed that doctors |
are exempt from the mental and moral |
inlirmties which, as Is universally con- |
coded. beset the rest OF their fellow |
creatures, but he feels that the reality |
of this state of things can be rendered |
certain 20 an incredulous generation only |
by making an occasional inquiry into the |
methods of the craft.
Dr. Taylor said he approved entirely of |
having the question settled In court and |
would cheerfully acquiesce In the Judges
decision whatever 1t might be.
-------------------------