Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-11-14
DEBATES
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
The Grard jury system.
BY HARVEY FOWLER, ESQ
CONTINUED


grave importance the under debate.
Mr.. PETIT suggested. that If the gentleman desir-
ed it, he had doubt the Convention would readily post
pone the subject until tomorrow morning
Mr.. NILES. shall doubtless be able proceed with
the few remarks | have 10 make. have been highly
gratihed sir the disposition which has been manifest
ed by members of this Convention u open the door to
debate and to permit fair and thorough discussion oil
this subject.
Gentlemen who have preceded me have appropriately
referred the origin and history of the Grand Jury Sys
1t true. sir that IL has down to honor
ed with the countenance oil thousand years, and am
there is a member of this body who would In
CONSIDERABLY strike at its foundations. We venorae the
aged 1t is a sentiment common to every well reg
ulated human heart. We should grow in wisdom as we
grow in years | would undcrvalue the experience
and lessons Of antiquity. But when gentlemen compare
the early portions the historic period with the
wears and ripened mind OF my friend from Wayne, II
that the truth is inverted in the comparison
We, sir, may not have arrived the maturity oil our
race but have oultsdly made some farther pro-
gress towards its advancing manhood than bad the peo-
pie OF medieval antiquity among whom the Grand Jury
System first established and from whom It mas de-
Scend- ID, unchanged And while would not dis
card the history Of the past the experience of YOUTH
still hold that that history and experience mainly
use they expose the and evils of the past and
warnings for the future. This Is no less true OF
States and Nations than of individual men. We may
well cherish the OF early years. But when,
in the progress Of lives we look back we may inn
agne that States are permitted do when Conventions
of the people called together, con-
yened, remodel their organic law. what should be
the purpose Of the retrospect! Not sir. that may
follow blindly in the path but that, by the
nv of past loes and misortunes we may regulate and
improve future And sir, instead Of matter
of exntation and self compacency, who does not find
the retrospect occasion rather for repentance and
formation He who reviews bis life with other purposes
/ apprehend reads its history to small profit.
Earnestly desiring the benefit of whatever light may
be derived from the history Of the past come to The
discussion OF this subject oppressed with sense of its
Importance and of the responsibility that will rest upOn
for my individual VOTE if given anticipate that
who would reckessy destroy civil fabric its
fair proportions. would not, to build more comfort
able edi6ee, down the humble dwelling in which
find shelter and which is still my home, until better
had been provided. And shall endeavor to act upon
the same principle here.
fully convinced that the present Grand Jury Sys
TEN is defective, and that it must some time and in
some wav be superseded. The question with me, there
fore not mainly whether it is unsued this country
and this age for in that particular concur fully with
the spirit of the resolution under debatc. But It Is
chiefly question when and how 1t shall be
dispensed with,-as whether any better system can
here and now, probably at distant dav, he matur
ed and engraited upon the institutions Of the country
Before concluding my remarks. may take the liberty OF
making a few suggestions a substitute Tor Grand
Jurics, hut which may be little worthy the consideration
of the Convention.
word now as 10 the practical workings of the Grand
Jury System, its benefits and its defects. Gentlemen
contend that it has been extremely useful part Of
political institutions | am not disposed TO Join Is
sue with them that point. IL has doubtless answered
a
Britain former ages aud the present day 1t has
doubtless aided in the administration of usce and,
the language OF the gentleman from Wayne, been
evil doors IL may have afforded some proec
ton the liberty and private rights of the citizen
subject against the power Of the the fury OF
popular excitement. But sir, do not agree with gen.
tlemen that has been the great buwark of liberty, and
the great safeguard of private rights. On the
trary all history proves that it has often been the plant
tool OF tyranny and oppression. And not, sir, be-
cause the men who have constituted Grand Jues have
hon AMI fbxf hufoS
contend. because of the inherent defects OF the system
under which they are organized.
Throughout it, entire history in England in its very
constitution, has been the OF the
The panne selected by the officers Of the with
out the knowledge consent OF the parties to he ac
cused and without any essential right of challenge
They to keep the secrets Of the crown, and
TO inquire into such matters shall come before them
behalf OF the and hut the counsel for the
crown admitted to their concave.
IL is true that whenever hatred OF tyranny should be-
intense such body would he likely TO show
resistance. But when gentlemen argue that jury
drawn Unfortunately from excited populace would
show the resistance the excitement under which
they themselves tailoring, / understand
their logic. The way to the scafold has lain through
the verdicts Of twelve twice rendered. But still
submit all thinking who acquainted with the
bloody history Of British rule how weak barrier have
not both Of those verdicts often proved. Let me not
here he misunderstood Let not be understood as
striking at undertaking the trial by lury-a right
which hold as sacred and to which cling tenacious
ly does my friend from Cass. But the palladium of
public liberty and private rights lies much in
lawn statute books and the action oil legislatures. Ii
lies further back-it has deeper foundation And
when the great safeguard which the intelligence
and integrity OF government and people lost, little pro-
tseton come from any other quarter. 1t is the
spirit OF the than system of the
Of Justice which has led crime and bOodshed in the
name and with the sanction Of law. Nv friend from
Cass, (Mr- Biddle) in his eloquent euoGum upon the
Grand jury System has remarked Of the condemnation
and crucihxion of our Lord that that condemnation
could have been prounced country where Grand
and Traverse Juries were known But in the language
of another, when goodness and truth descended from
heaven TO earth, what the cry of the populace!
Cruelty him. cruelty him And had jury been neces-
sary to his condemnation, jury from that popuace
would have ratified the cry.
Mr.. BIDDLE. VIII the gentleman allow me to ex-
plain! spoke Of its application to and mems af-
fairs. The gentleman must understand me say
ing what the object Of divine Justice IL it
necessary the mind of ghty God that the Savior
should be cr1cied to reconcile Justice and mercy it
must have been.
Mr.. NILES i should be sorry misconstrue the
genteman's remarks. Of course, in speaking Of this
sacred subject speak after the OF men, and would
speak with all reverence and understand the gentle
man. / do understand that mems hearts per-
verted TO that end. But, in that great event, see
wonderful Instance Of the blended action Of Gods prov
dence and human freedom. Men permitted to act
the evil that them. There, was illustrated
universal priDeiple-the which regned at the
bloody asszes and which caused the streets Of Paris to
flow down with blood during the first French revolution
with the Of tyrants only but by the voice of
the people themselves.
may here remark that any argument in favor Of the
Grand Jury system, drawn solely from its antiquity If
IL proves anything proves too much IL is argu-
ment which would sustain body Of hereditary legisa-
in Great Britain, with its bench Of bishops 1t is
argument which has proved main support Of old
abuses The question is not how long has il existed,
hut is il best adapted the condition Of society among
u.s. here and now1 To decide that ii is not, admit,
involves no little responsibility.