New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-02-09

der. bat merely az witnesses. The difference, IS
We understand II. between the eases Of 5acd-
erss. End Eclel was this: The commitment Of
snodgrs.- directed the jaior to keep him for eI-
anil alton, and until further order, apart from
any ether witness Both the Dstrc,-At;orney
and the Judge inferred from this latter phrase thu.
Suoderss- was COMMITTED merely In his character
OF witness. and as the Judge held that the Coro-
ner possessed 10 .uch power over witnesses, Snod-
prss. was a. once discharged. IL Eckels commit
ment the TAILOR was directed TO hold him for e1ami-
nation without anything added to show in what
capacity il va, intended 10 examine him, whether
AZ witness or on charge Of being concerned in
the murder. To solve this ambiguity the
wit was sent back to the Coroner for an amended
return and such having been made, including
charge against Eckel Of being implicated in the
murder. be was recommitted II custody as already
stated. In the case Of Mrs. Cunningham, the Cor
oner returned ths. be detained Der las an import
"ant witness and az being suspected of being the
s'perpetrator Of. or connected with, the murder"
These suspicious Of the Coroner were esteemed by
the Judge sufficient 10 warrant an order on his part
for the return Of Mrs. Cunningham 10 the COroners
custody, to be kept by him till the termination Of
the inquest To the writ issued in behalf Of the
two daughters, the Coroner returned, as justfying
their detention iba. the circumstances developed
on the inquest tended 10 show that the sad persons
detained" "are" either implicated or know
"something in regard TO the cause snd manner of
aid death" A preceding part of the return
would indeed seem to represent these two persons
as being detained as witnesses" but i il apparent
from tire lstter part ot il, as above quoted tina;
beside the suspicion Of "knos wing something, the
Coroner also su.pec,e them of being implicated
in the crime. Now if such suspicious Of his were
sufficient to Justify the arrest of the mother, why
not the daughters In their case, if no. also in
that If Snodgrass according to the cOurse followed
In Eckels case, an amended return from the Coro-
ner would seem TO have been required 10 deter
mine the precise ground upon which they were
bed. Unaware apparently Of the distinction be-
tween bis power over these parties as witnesses
and his power over them as suspected persons, as
held by the Judge, suppOsing that be had
right TO detan them in both characters, the
Coroner, in the case Of SnOdgrass and the two
daughters, had not as il seems probable, very dis
tinctly defined 10 himsef the extent Of his suspl
c!ons. Perhaps be might think the suspicion of
having been accessories before after the fact or
at least Of misprison-which is the concealment OF
felony which one knew of but never assented to
to be as strong against them the suspicion against
Eckel and Mrs. Cunningham Of having been princi-
pals; and as 10 Eckes case he was called upoH 70
define his position, why not, also, in the others
As to the point of law upon which Judge Brady
based bis discharges, it strikes US that Coroner
must, like every other judge, possess certain
authority over the witnesses summoned before his
court and in attendance upon 1t, and that not
merely, as Judge Brady comedies, while the witness
is On the stand, but at all times, before and after,
during the pendepcy of the hearing Every Judicial
officer ceItsnly has the power to require of the wit
nesses summoned before him, in criminsl Gaze, to
give satisfactory security that they will attend
from day to day, and upon their failure 70
give that security, to commit them to custody.
II would also seem that all courts, and Coroners
court among the rest, must possess the power TO
isolate the wtnesses, and pending the Investigation
10 prevent them from communicating with each
other, or with the interested parties. Ordinarily,
perhaps occasions will seldom arise for the exercise
of this power, yet there are cases where the e1er-
else Of it may be of the highest Importance. IL Is
a customary tbirg for witnesses to beexcuded from
a court room while other witnesses are under eI-
animation and we see not Why, upon the same prln'
cpe, witnesses should not be prevented from read
ing news papers containing reports OF the EVIDENCE
thu not easy TO be done unless they are put into
the suryeil ance Of an officer.
These are points rather to be discussed on gen.
eral principles and tie necessity of the case than 10
be decided on the strength Of precedents. II may
be- that the reported cases do no. furnish any III
stances Of such detention aud isolation OF witnesses.
How indeed, could expect they would I'LL
within very recent period there were very lie"
trials that were not firi.hed within single day
while the reporting Of evidence in the newspapers
is also very modern usage. Changes like these 1t
is easy to perceive, may well require precautions IN
respect Of Witnesses and especially suspected VT
nesses, not hitherto in use; but still abundanty
justified by the dictates of common sense and the
requirements of public justice Nor Is il any suh-
cient objection that such precautions may prove an
annoy ance to the persons subject 10 them. Like
being obliged to attend as witness at all, often to
tie neglect # ones private business, they may be
very serious snnOysnces, but still annoy ances which
tie eXigences Of justice make il necessary 70 I'M
pose aid require US TO endure.
We learn by the journals Of ST. Petersburg that
l. S,oackl 10 for ANNA time hss off,