Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1841-1853, 1850-11-07
DEBATES
IN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
DEBATES
MONDAY, October q, 1850.
Grand Jury System.
REPORTED BY HARVEY FOWLER, ESQ

The special ORDER being the consideration Of the
luton relative to the abolition OF the Grand Jury
system, was then taken up.
Mr.. ANTHONY rose and said: Mr. President, have
pad some attention to the lect embraced in tue pro-
position before and e.ing considerable interest
IN IT, viii offer few remarks relation thereto more
however, r the purpose OF opening the discussion, and
preparing the way for those who fully competen
discuss the subject, than to make spe ch myself AT
tins time will merely look the subject IN Its econOm
zeal relations. We have in Indiana ninety counties The
Grand Jury, along with the Circuit Court, assemblies
twice each year. and generally composed OF from six
teen 10 eighteen individuals. We generally SIT ten days
and down their per diem at dollar and
twenty-five each, the total expense OF Grand Ju
res to the people Of this State, is twenty Thousand
dollars each year. And, sir, for the payment oil this
large sum, remember, that the people must he taxed, in
addition their other hnhens twenty thousand dollars
for Grand Juries alone La addition to this should be
estimated the fees OF blIlis and other incidental
penses occasOned by the finding of unlustiabe iadict
by the Grand Juries their sessions And
we might add the expenses OF petit iuries, engaged in
trying individuals upon these indictments, so many OF
which would have been found had the sttlngs Of
the Grand Jury been in public and their decisions found
after an impartial hearing of the testimony both
sides.
am not well prepared sir, discuss this question
as should have BEEN had we been supplied with the
additional inormaon this Convention has endeavOred
to Obtain But there is enough already known show
us that the expenses entaed by Grand Jues
than the entire expense of whole judicial system be-
sides. We should thoroughly investigate this matter
and II It Is possible 10 establish economical
tenn and which should all the ends of justice
and social order, are bound to do
II has been remarked and objected, that have
the Constitutional right abolish the system of Grand
JurieS We have cited to the fifth article of the Con-
sriuon of the United States, which says that, . In
criminal prosecutions, person shall be held to
Tor capital, or otherwise Infamous crime, unless on
presentnent Indictment by Grand Jury except in
occurring in the land naval forces in the mill
TIA when IN actual service in time OF war public dan
GER shall any person be subject for the offence
TO he twice PUT IN Jeopardy of lie imb shall lie
compelled in criminal case, be witness against
himself, be deprived OF life, liberty, property,
without due PRO OF law noe shall private properly
be taken rlf pub lie without Just compensation"
But, sir. have thus construed that proviicl of
the Federal Constitution / do not consider that the
terms of the filth article intended to, do pro-
hbit the sovereign States from doing away with what
may indeed be the time honored instlu ion" of the
Grand Jury. Ii we examine the history Of the forma
ton and adoption OF the Federal Constitution, we shall
discover that tie time the several States
for their consideration and adopion this Identical clause
the fifth article now relied upon conclusive bar to
the abO ion OF the Grand Jary-was not in the Consti-
tu;on ali I OF the amendments after yards
made and adopted and il introduced limit the
Constitution and to cOlin the powers OF the General
Government II for the purpose of forever prohb-
itlng the General Government from taking the life, lib
ey property OF ciiiz of any of the Unied
without his being first indicted 10y Grand Jury and
afterwards tried by jury of his peers. 1t has been de-
cided by than court, that those articles OF
general nature IN the Constitution OF the United States
designed restrict and conne the powers OF the
Federal COnstitatiOn-not 10 extend them. Such
the decision OF the Supreme Court of New York report
ed In Wendel and in the Supreme Court of the nied
States reported in the seventh of Peters Marshall
Judge says The provision OF the fifth amendment
the Constitution OF the United States claiming that
private property shall not I've taken for pubic use. with
out Gst compensation Is intended, solely limi alton
the exercise of power by the government OF the United
States, and that the Constitution ordained and cstab
shed by the people of the United States for themselves
for the government of individual States. Each State
established COnsti uon for iise, and in local Consti-
tutOns, provided n limitations and restrictions tile
powers OF its particular government It's judgment die
tated- The peopls framed such government Tor the
United States they supposed best adapted their
sltuaon and best calculated to promote their interests
The powers they conferred this Government were TO
be exercised by ITSELF and the limitations powers if
expressed in general terms naturally and
ry applicable to the government created by the nstru-
ment- They limitations of powers granted in the
instrument ITSELF Of distinct governments framed by
different persons and for different purposes"
This decision of Judge Marshall is deserving of great
consideration, every opinion emanating from that
distinguished jurist, but this decision with
additional weight when reflect that Mr.. Marshall
was one OF those who ut the organization OF the Gov
eminent, strongly in favor OF extending the powers
OF the Federal Government. When such Judge, hold
ing such peculiar position in this regard gives such
decision as have quoted, there can no longer remain
any doubts in the minds OF gentlemen the right and
the power under the Constitution abolish Grand
Jares whenever the people through their delegates shall
demand such a change Behind these decisions we in
trench ourselves and here for the present, will leave
the consideration of the Constitutional feature Of this
question.
hshed originally protect the rights and privileges of
the sui ec against encroachments of kingy and
limited power II is very easy for us, Mr. President
understand the why all English writers have uni
formly given this the Tor the establishment of
Grand Juries. Ii look the Constitution of Eng
land. though cursoriy. shall discover vast
difference between il and In England all power
is lodged in the King, the House of Lords and the House
of Commons. All power, all authority and all patron
age flows directly and exclusively from the King, who
Supreme Head oil the State, and also OF the Church.
Every officer ia the kingdom is the agent and servant,
not OF the people sir but oil the King to whom and to
whom alone BE is responsible for all his acts and
whom he is dependent for the amount and payment of
his salary. Tie Sovereign appoints the Justices Of
the Peace well all Judges 1t is that by v
tue OF recent OF Parliament, forced from that body
by the irresistible pressure OF public opinion and pop
ular will, which, in absolute mOBarches, be
wholly suppressed the Judges made somewhat
independent of the Crown. From this glance at the
British Constitution, il is evident that il the King
ed Indictment found against individual matter
how slight the cause, personal pique, luminosity may
prompt the whole, he has but command 1t and the
thing is done. Thus that the real object Of the
institution Of the Grand Jury system in England-hat
IT was not much for the protection of the peoples
rights and franchise, 1t convenient and most
powerful prerogatve Of the Crown the aggrahdize-
ment and strengthening Of which it has always contri
butcd.
Bat in this country every thing is different. Instead
of tue King or the Government b any FORM and under
any name, being the osntin and primal source OF honor
and patronage the people is the acknowledged source
Of all honor and overy officer in the Republic: from the
President Of the Union down to township lence view
err is responsible solely and directly t. the people;
hence such institution Grand Jury is needed to
stand between the people and of King the Sovereign
authority To those who tell that the Grand Jury
established in England and has been used for the
protection Of the rights and privileges and freedom OF
the people, would reply that History does not sustain
them in that position In all the important State trials
in England from the time Of Sidney down to the trial Of