New-York tribune., 1903-07-20
A LocKPoRT STAR CHAMBER.

A connner,s tnouest lust held at Lockport
into a trolley accident in Niagara County raises
an important question concerning publicity of
court proceedings That is a matter which was
long ago supposed to be settled. but from time
to time officials come up who seem never to
have learned the fundamental principles OF
American law. Arguing from the analogy OF
magistrate acting in what are commonly called
John Doe proceedings" the coroner and Dis
trict Attorney of Niagara County say that a
coroner is like magistrate making an invest-
CATION to see if a crime has been committed.
They think the inquest can get better results
if no publicity is given to parts Of testimony be-
fore the rest is taken, so they have excluded
the press from the sittings and have been car
rying on the proceedings in secret.
Now it happens that all the learned anal
ogies of the coroner and District Attorney of
Niagara County, matter how plausible, are
not the law Of New-York. Perhaps the ends of
justice would be promoted by such secrecy as
they desire. Perhaps the coroners ought to be
empowered to hold John Doe proceedings" in
stead of coroner's inquests over dead men. II
so that is a subject for reform by legislation.
AT present the law is perfectly plain. When a
coroner takes testimony concerning a fatality
he is holding an inquest and nothing else, and
that inquest is by law public. The fact that
analogous inquiry in secret gives the coroner no
power to exclude any well behaved person from
his court Section of the Code of Civil Pro-
cedure says that "the sittings of every court
within this State shall be public and every
citizen may freely attend the same" except
that in certain cases persons not concerned in
the issues may be excluded for reasons of pub
lie decency.
This section has been held to apply to a
corOner's inquest. In the case of Crisfeld
against Perine (15 Hun, 200, the General Term
in the Fourth Department has declared that "a
"coroner's inquest is a judicial proceeding and
lis within the policy of the statute which de-
"clares that the sittings of any court within
this State shall be public and every citizen
may freely attend the same" That case was
a suit by a physician against coroner owing to
his exclusion from an autopsy which he wished
to attend on behalf of the person who inflicted
the injuries supposed to have caused death.
The court nonsuited him on the ground that the
autopsy was not a part of the inquest If it
were, it was conceded that the exclusion was
illegal The court said that was ''the real ques-
ton in the case" and showed that even the
jurors, while they must view the body. had no
right to be present at the autopsy What the
surgeon found was to be disclosed to them in
testimony. There was however, no question
but that the inquest itself, the part of the pro-
ceedlngs which consisted of the examination OF
witnesses must be public under the law.
We cannot believe that the press of Western
New York will yield without protest TO this
Lockport usurpatiOn of power. '"The Buffalo
Express" whose reporters were excluded from
the inquest, has taken up the question and chal-
lenged the right of the coroner on any pretext
to conduct his court in secret. Probably public
interest in the accident is great enough in that
locality to prompt a general demand for pub
licity, but at any rate the principle involved is
too important for press or people tamely to ac-
quiesce in the violation Of fundamental rules of
our judicial procedure.