South Bend news-times. (South Bend, Ind.) 1913-1938, 1914-02-03
LETTERS OF THE
PEOPLE.

To the Editor of the News-Times:
In your issue OF yesterday morning
IS printed a letter from Atty. Thomas
w. Slick, which I think reflects un-
fairly upon me as coroner and my
verdict I'm the collapse of the Shively-
Horner building Mr.. Slick refers 10
several accidents which occurred be-
fore 1 took my Office and with which
I had nothing to do. However in the
case OF a person being struck by a
train or street car as well as in the
case Of the iineman 10 which he also
refers, the victim is aware of the ele-
ment OF danger in crossing the track
or In the pursuance o. his work and
there is the question often as to his
own Carelessness or lack OF caution.
and, on the other hand. the respOn-
sibility OF the company. In the Shive-
ly-HOrner building, however. there
was no danger sign. The victims had
no mixing Of an approaching Catas
trOphe which snuffed out their lives.
The responsibility of rendering a YER
dict fell upon me as coroner Of st.
Joseph county. The law states speci-
hcally that the coroner shall proceed
To investigate the manner, the cause.
and the responsibility for the deaths
which occur. i could have side-step-
ped the issue by rendering an open
verdict but L believe the public de-
mands from the coroner a careful
investigation and an honest verdict.
or else the Office is a farcical one.
In this case i thoroughly recognize
the tact that Mr.. Schneider is an up
right and moral citizen. but where. /
should like 10 ask Mr.. Slick, would he
Place the blame2 If Mr.. Schneider
resided elsewhere, would IL be easier
20 hold him blameless? Simply be-
cause a man is neighbOr and a good
citizen does not altogether excuse him
from culpability when it comes 10
professional work.
= Speaking further, Mr.. Slick SAYS
that Mr.. Schneider may have made an
error OF Judgment. That is just the
point and ] should like TO illustrate it
Take for instance a train dispatcher
who sends ont orders to two trains.
one train. tn his judgment. he thinks
can reach a certain siding before an
other train gets there, but that iudg-
ment proves TO be erroneous. and the
two trains meet i'm a head-On collision.
Is the dispatcher not to blame? Are
not the engineers and conductors
working under his orders? Was il
not his business to exercise good
judgment, since he was employed as
expert?
corCucted a thorough investiga-
tiOE amt went over carefully the plans.
Specifications. weights. etc. but / did
not presume TO RELY upon my iudg
ment alone, but ] had the assistance
and repOrt OF the mayors commission
which included men whose profession
al training and business entitled them
10 Judge as we'll as legal advice which
/ privately employed, leaving no stone
0nturned in attempting TO fix the re-
SpOnslbilitX which it was my sworn
duty 20 do. This commission i'm its
report 10 Mayor Keller arrived at the
decision after the most searching in
VestigatiOn. that the concentrated
leads were not only. as ! put 10 mildly
TWO or three times too great, but six
or seven. Who is to blame? II is
very true that Mr.. Schneider had no
criminal intent. but ne drew the plans
and specifications. and he superin-
tended the work. Mr. Slick says lit
strikes me that the coroner is doing
more than his duty when he presumes
to issue Instructions or even suggests
to the prosecutor Now I grant that
Mr. Slick is COnVersant with the laws
governing the prosecutor $ office. how
ever wish To call his attention To the
fact that any private citizen of the
county can bring punishable offense
20 the notice of the grand jury while
70 is in session through the attention
of the prosecutor. That is simply
what | did but I specifically named
the architect in this case. 7 could
have gone further have every right