The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo. MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1904. THE CORONERS' BILL.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXV, Issue 206, 29 August 1904, Page 4

The Auckland Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News and The Echo.

MONDAY, AUGUST 29, 1904. THE CORONERS' BILL.

For the eassee that lacks assist—nee. For the wrong that needs resistaaos, Far the future in the distance. And the good that we asm do.

Some five or six times within the last nine years bills have been introduced into Parliament for the purpose of abolishing the time-honoured office of Coroner in this colony. In 1896, 1897, 1898, 1902, 1903, various Ministers have produced measures almost precisely similar to the Coroners' BUI that the Attorney-General has this year brought before the Legislative Council. The regularity and persistence of the attempts to carry this measure would at least suggest that it involves some principle of serious public importance; but this excuse we have entirely failed to discover. We can Bee no more reason for supporting the bill now than last year, when we condemned the Coroners' Bill of 1903 as unnecessary, impracticable and calculated to expose the community to serious danger. The main point of the Coroners' BID is that the Coroner, as an official, is abolished, and the work of holding inquests is to be taken up by Stipendiary Magistrates, and when they are not able to attend to this duty, by Justices of the Peace. As we have pointed out before, it is not at all probable that our Stipend 1 ary Magistrates—who, by the way, are already ex-officio Coroners—can find time for these additional duties. Nor is it likely that the everrecurring difficulty of finding Justices of the Peace ready and willing to do the ordinary work of the Courts will be lessened when the tiresome and thankless work of the Coroner is superadded to their ordinary functions. At the same time it would be gross flattery to the average colonial J.P. to pretend that he is always and of necessity competent to discharge the duties of a Coroner in a discriminating and satisfactory way. As far as the demands of justice and the safety of the general public are concerned, the change proposed by the bill would be distinctly for the worse. We are glad to observe that since the bill was introduced an important alteration has been made in it by the provision that all inquests shall be held before a jury. In the Coroners' Bills of former years, to which we have referred, it has been proposed to get rid of the Coroner's jury altogether. However, the remonstrances of the Dunedin "Evening Star," the Auckland "Star" and other journals on this point seem to have had the desired effect, and the Coroner's jury, which has been an English institution for quite 1000 years, is ■till with ns. But we hope that the House will take care to insist that the

iewing of the body shall be carried >ut in the traditional way. If this is not done —more especially in gstol or asylum cases in wh : eh violence is suspected—the community will be deprived of one of its strongest safeguards against crime. In connection with gaol eases we think it most objectionable i that the Coronet should be supposed to ! depend upon the "assistance" of the police in arranging for an inquest. In the case of deaths occurring in custody, the police are practically on their trial, and it is contrary to all the principles of justice that they should take an active part in arranging for the investigation of such incidents. On the whole we can see no reasonable excuse for any of the alterations in the present system of Coroners' inquests, and we are driven to conclude that the only reason for the proposed change is the outcry that is periodically raised against inquests by relatives or friends of the deceased. We can understand the Bentimenta.l objection to inquests, and we would certainly not advocate any lack of consideration for the claims of humanity in sneh cases. But we are entirely in accord with the opinion lately expressed by the Dunedin "Star," that an inquest ought to be held "in the case of every death the cause of which is unexplained by a medical certificate." No sentimental reasons should be allowed to outweigh the paramount consideration of the public safety. As to the populafr cry that Coroners order inquests for the sake of the fees, we believe that this is, generally speaking, an outrageous libel at the expense of a capable and deserving body of men. But the complaint, such as it is, points to an obvious way of improving the present system. Why should the Coroner be asked to discharge these important but unpleasant duties without some specified remuneration? In Sydney and Melbourne it is found advisable to pay coroners a fixed salary, and that is the course that should be followed in New Zealand. It happens that Auckland is far less generous than either of the other large centres of population in the colony. In Wellington, Christchurch. and Dunedin the total remuneration of the coroner in 1902 ranged from £560 to £590; in Auckland it was only £209, with deductions oh account of office clerk and telephone service, which elsewhere axe free. However, the question is of far more than local importance, and we are convinced that the only way of getting and keeping competent men to discharge these important duties satisfactorily is to attract such men to the office by the offer of a reasonable salary, and to prevent their remuneration from depending in any way upon the number of inquests they hold.