New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1895-08-23
4 RACK RECORD.


There were several significant occurrences yes
ter1ay in connection with the inquest In the
matter Of the building wreck. The most impor
tant Of these was the arrest OF four men Tor
culpabe neglect and OF the former inspector
Buckley for refusing 10 testify. 1t would be I'M
proper 10 PREJUDICE trial for granddaughter, but
there is no Injustice in declaring that by their
own acknowledgements Bchrcns, the architect
and Murray, the builders foreman, are guilty OF
wrongdolng which possibly may never be proved
against them legally. 1t II seldom safe To an
sumo that n process OF law VIII certainly ter
inmate In the interest OF the people, even wh'n'
M In this case the proofs or moral responsibility
are overwhelming The architect has repeatedly
admitted facts which demonstrate gross neglect
Of duty on his part Yesterday the foreman
swore that he had obcyed explicit orders IN lay
Ing only twelve inches or concrete instead vi
eighteen, but he knew that he had no business
to assist In the performance OF IN Illegal and
dangerous Job. Incidentally also he testified
that he had deliberately lied TO the Superin-
tendent Of Buildings about the cesspool, and In
all his evidence not only disclosed his total I'M
fitness to bear responsibility, but Also as the
Coroner said established presumption that he
was trying to shield his principal
But in some respects the most dlscredltable
incident of the day was the refusal OF the ex-
inspector, by advice of his lawyer. to take the
wtnessstand The lawyer explained that 10
testify would tend to ncriminate his client. He
persisted in his refusal and properly put
under arrest. Here then Is man who until re-
Gently was public official specially charged to
ascertain and certify that the building which
ln "
ed. and who now declines to say one word under
oath in furtherance Of the investigation. The
architect has sworn that the ex-lnspector bid on
the mason work in his own interest. There Is
a mass of evidence showing that the law and
the specifications were violated while this public
official and unsuccessful bidder was supposed TO
be watching the work and guaranteeing its hon
esty. Is there particle Of doubt that n man
who, in his position. knew that he had done or
even meant TO do his duty would seize the first
opportunity TO vndcate his honor and. If pos
sible his intelligence? Is it unjust 10 conclude
that he says nothing because he has much to
conceal? There is escape from the convic
ton that the public which paid this man and was
compelled to trust him was abominably swirl
died, and that in consequence OF his inhdehty
fifteen individuals lost their lives. II he is afraid
Of discriminating himself by speech, where does
he imagine that silence leaves him?
1t Is certain that indictments will follow the
revelations of this week, but there may be rea-
son to fear that there will not be enough of them,
while melancholy experience suggests serious
distrust Of the Dlstrlct-Attorneys zeal and reso-
luton Public safety demands and the com
munity should insist upon prompt and vigoT-
GUS prosecution Of the cases which 1t will soon
be his duty to prepare. There Is great need OF
such n warning and such safeguards as the Grim
inal courts alone can supply.