Amador ledger., 1904-09-16
SEPTEMBER 16, 1904
A WEAK DEFENSE.
JACKSON. Sent 100

OA4J IOllOhOU OAC pain law DO uAQCl-
stand it.
Section 1910 of the Penal Code makes
it my duty to hold an inquest on per-
son who has been killed, and Sections
1911 and 1919 of the same code describe
how the inquests shall be conducted.
There is nothing in any of these Sec
tions authorizing me to consolidate the
records where more than one person
has been killed. At the same time,
while l may use the same jury and the
same evidence, [ must have separate
record of the evidence for each case,
and if my good friends of the Ledger
and Amador City will refer me to any
law directing me to consolidate the
records, | will be pleased to follow it.
Yours respectfully,
GEORGE M. HUBERTY,
Coroner Amador County.
We are pleased topublish the fore
going, taken from our cotemporary
of last week 1t is intended to
bolster up the action of the coroner
in having three copies of the testi-
mony taken in the inquest upon the
body of A. Scatena, and making the
same do service as three separate
inquests over the three victims of
the Argonaut disaster. Three sep
arate inquests have been filed in the
clerks Office, and the jurors actually
signed three verdicts to meet the
three cases. As we have before
stated, the only object to be gained
thereby was to enable the coroner
to draw fees for three inquests,
when as matter of fact only one
examination was held. The coroner
is wide of the mark in saying that
the ventilation of this matter is an
attempt to prejudice the people
against him." 1t is simply state
ment OF facts; ventilation of the
record which the coroner, as a
sworn officer of the county, is carv-
ing out for himself. II has been
shown that he is taking a course
which no predecessor has ever taken;
a course which in this particular
case was intended to treble the cost
of investigating the disaster at the
Argonaut, without throwing soli-
tary ray of additional light upon
that sad affair. There was not, and
could not be, any motive of public
policy prompting this conduct. We
can see nothing but self interest at
the bottom of the proceeding. If
this ventilation tends to prejudice
the people against the coroner, he
must lay the blame where it belongs,
namely, as the natural outcome of
the new precedent which he at
tempted to establish for his own
benefit.
But in justification of his course
the coroner refers to Section 1910.
That section reads as follows:
When coroner is informed that a
person has been killed, or has commit
ted suicide, or has suddenly died under
such circumstances as to afford reason
able ground to suspect that his death
has been occasioned by the act of an
other by criminal means, he must 90
to the place where the body is, cause it
to be exhumed if it has been inferred,
and summon not less than nine or more
than fifteen persons, qualified by law to
serve as jurors, to appear before him
forthwith, at the place where the body
nf dn0naca1 ic 70 ,;, IT, 1 L
of the death.
We fail to find herein any per-
emptory authority for holding one
Inquest, to say nothing of three, on
the Argonaut mine disaster. There
was not the slightest ground for be-
lieving that anyone was criminally
responsible for the accident. In
such case it is within the discre-
tion of the coroner to determine
whether an inquest shall be held.
We will admit, however, that in the
interest and for the protection of all
concerned it was the proper thing
to hold an inquest. This much was
expected, and was fully justifable
under the circumstances. To hold
more than one inquest was entirely
unnecessary, and therefore without
legal authority. Suppose there had
been one hundred victims, does the
coroner contend that it would have
been his duty to file an inquisition
upon each victim. How about the
Chicago theater horror, and the
Colorado railroad wrecks. If the
Interpretation of our local official is
correct, and the law governing such
cases is the sane as here, the Off
GERS must be holding inquests yet.
with thousands of dollars in sight as
fees. Such a far-fetched interpreta-
tion of a plain law will not be ac-
cepted by the ordinary and dis
interested reader.
Again, if the coroner was required
to file three inquests, it was neces-
sary for him to impanel three sep
arate juries. How could the same
jury after passing upon one case, be
in an impartial and unbiased frame
OF mind to pass upon the other two?