The morning journal-courier., 1908-07-25
THE CORONERs JURY.

THE tOVONEItS JURY.
 A coroner's investigation of rail- road wreck is seldom entirely satis- factory, however much that may he regretted. one great trouble is that the train or trains in wreck quite generally destroy, at the very time that the catastrophe occurs the very evidence that is most nee ,ssary for Il jury in coming to a positive and con vincing conclusion. When ihe mass of wreckage is finally extrllated 1t Ia usually found to be so torn and twist cd and broken up that its original condition can, at best, only be guessed at. Another great trouble Is that the proper witnesses and exp 'ts are sel- dom available when the investigation is in progress; and, finally, jurymen have to be selected who ire not rail- road men and who are thoroughly un- familiar with railroad principles.
 The latest wreck at Greenwich de- mauds more than usual interest of the public, in comparison with the num- Der of It's fatalities, in view of the fact that comes simultaneous with the introduction of new means of loco- motion on the lines of he New Ha- ven road electricity, It could be hoped that the wreck would throw much valuable light upon me of the important principles of ,lectric rail- roading Ii Is to be regretted, then, that one cannot say that The coroner's verdict, as announced, is convincing It is far from being that. The road was negligent, reads the verdict, fin not tie-plating the entire track 1u our opinion there would have been less probability of derallment if the track had been tie-plated."
 This verdict was return I after list oning to fragmentary evidence that was, by no means, overwhelming. Even the coroner, in his charge tn the jury admitted this. 'I am very sorry he said then, that We haven't been able to get hold of some direct and positive testimony as to the first cause of the spreading of .he rails. What the cause was seems 10 be main ly matter of theory now" In spite of the coroner's warning to the con- trary, it would seem that the jury felt duty-hound to bring m some sort of verdict that sounded authorita- tive. "of course 1t is not ,art of your duty to find criticism and sault for the sake of finding fault, unless you can suggest what the remedy is," they were warned. At best 1t would seem rather much to expect men, who are not experts in railroadlng. Q suggest remedies which even the railroad It. self, whose financial and moral inter est 1t always is to prevent wrecks of this sort has overlooked The chief engineer of the division oe the road in which the accident happened had tes- tined, according to the accounts, that the rails there were tie-pllted accord ing to the provisions of the law. but, in spite of that fact, the jury brought in a verdict charging the railroad with negligence in just that cry respect. The general public cannot believe Il is any nearer the truth than before. | At any rate, something gave way. If might have been due .o rotten ties l lack of tie.plates, flanges on the engine wheels that were too heavy, or to the customary manner of running two electric motors, with their great weight, coupled together, Y Is not to be supposed that the :oad has not the common-sense to profit by expert. ence and probe into the accident on it: | own account more satisfa otorily than the jury did in order that 1t may find | a remedy and save itself expense and preserve it's reputation for snfe travel