Many articles have appeared in recent years, in both lay and professional journals,1recommending more wide-spread use of the medical examiner system of medicolegal investigation. With this stimulus, numerous moves have been made to supplant the coroner system, just as is now occurring in California. It is felt, however, that many of the conclusions drawn and references made relative to the coroner system are taken from sources long outdated. Issue is often made of the fact that the office of the coroner dates back to the time of Henry IV, and the function of the office in that era is described in considerable detail. This would seem to have little or no bearing in a factual analysis of modern coroners' offices. Repeatedly, the very unfavorable report of the National Research Council is offered as evidence of the inadequacies of the coroner system. This report, the last to deal in