Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-03-14
Convention.---Grand Jury.


correspondent of the Wabash Express argues
the question of the utility inutiy Of the Grand
Jury system, and maintains position opposite to that
of our correspondent "P" The Express pre-
sents various plausible arguments, in tone uppa-
renuy candid and sincere. This is commendable,
whoever may be right in the abstract. The Praeti-
ces under the Grand Jury system are of course not
altogether bad outrageous, as a general rule. If
they were, there would be doubt that large ma
jorty Of the people would be quite ready TO abogate
il. Public sentiment is great corrector and modi-
fer Of bad laws and bad institutions The true test
Of any such thing must be a comparative one. The
principles of evil and of good much nlired in
all things human, that it is sometimes difficult to de-
termine on which side the balance of either prepon-
derste. We can often only Judge of iinsuions, nc-
cording to what we may be convinced is the sum Of
evil good comparatively. If therefore there is
more evil in Grand Jury system comparatively,
than od-and if some other system would be less
evil, we should be justified in making change: in
deed we should feel ii duty make such change.
This is question of principle in the abstract but
simply of certain means 10 attain certain end.
A difference of opinion may therefore be regarded
with great liberality.
We are quite confident that our correspondent up"
possesses sufficient ability to defend himself without
our aid and we intentionally avoid committing our
selves editorialy upon question which like this
quires discussion in order to its proper settlement
We desire to proroke discussion among the people, SO
that may arrive the truth in its best form. 1t is
our disposition take the liberal side of any PROPOSE
tion especially if il be the lceak side. That
can do no barn. and may do some good.
We have already noted. with a single comment.
the objection raised by the Richmond Palladium, un-
der the 9TH section of the amendments to the U.S. Con-
siiution. We observe that the Express reprodu-
ces that objection his winding up argument in
swer "P." We have desire To deprive our friend
Of ammunition, but as we have not heard from him in
reply the Palladium, and the reiteration Of the
parently strong point may be deemed conclusive with
out immediate reply. viii venture to inform the Pal
ladum and the Express. that their strong objection
has been met and set aside by authority which we
presume they will deem conclusive. We mean de-
cision of the Supreme Court Of the u. S.. elabo-
rated by Chief Justice MARSHALL. For the full opin-
ion of the Court relative this very important point
we refer them to Peters's Reports, VOL Z, p. 243-
PSI. This report may be briefly summed up fol-
lows The provisions IF The 9th amendment to the
Constitution of the U. s., embracing the clause rea
tive to indictments by Grand Juries,) intended
solsly as limitation the exercise Of power by The
Government of the United States. The Constitution
ordained and established by the people of the u
S. for themselves; for their government; and mol
for the government of the individual States. Each
State established Constitution for ITSELF and in tina
Constitution provided such limitations and restriction:
the powers Of its particular government ii
judgement dictated. The people of the U. s. fran
ed such government for the United States ihey
supposed best adapted to their situation and best cal
culated to promote their interests The pocers the,
conferred this government TO be exercised b.
itself and the limitations power, if expressed il
general terms. naturally and necessarily appIca
Bile to lte government created by the instrument The
are limitations Of power granted in the instrumen
ITSELF not of distinct governments famed by dieren
persons and for different purposes.
These conclusions, recollect, are those Of the u S
Supreme Court,-not ours. They are sufficient, $
far as this point is concerned.