New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-09-20

say he knew no ore he would Be perurer for no dolbt
be did know some who had 81 least gone far sell
yecsnt glass Of beer Sundays Or ii he should say
he did know such persons and should then De asked who
they were he could not answer living be did retired
and away from society Or if he were 70 say evaslve
IT. that he aid not know whether there such per-
sons or not be would also be q perjurer. for he did
tnovx tbst among hundred and twenty thousand per
sops there must be some who broke Of the count
less statutes Of the place Or if he asked whether
10 knew of auv public nuisance in the City he would
have 70 say he did snd the greatest and worst was the
Grand jury with is secrecy. lis spies and It's ancny
mons deuunciations Besides. be refused this oath
from religious scrupes 1t was true he said that hls
religion of which he the founder and perhaps the
only adherent did not form large body. but the law
did not prescribe any particular number as necessary
70 constitute a sect. and his rights a. good as
though he had thousands Of disciples For these rei-
sons he asked the Court to sustain him. and TO decide
that the Grand Jury had right to require and could
not compel the taking of the sort of general oath in
question.
The Judqe seems 10 have been bothered by the
novelty Of these objections. After taking night to
consider the matter be decided substantially that the
General oath must be taken but when few minutes
sterward the Grand Jury came back again into Court
TO say that the witness was still stubborn new de-
cision was rendered and the foreman was instructed
70 inform the witness Of the particular case in which
he was expected to testify. and TO make him swear
with reference to that alone.
But this was not the only triumph which Bernstein
was destined on that day to achieve He had carried
his point about the OATH and in the afternoon the ex-
hausted Grand Jury into Court asking to be dis
charged because they could not get forward with the
witness A. every new case coming up for inquiry
they had anew 10 administer the oath TO him and this
took up so much time that they could accomplish
nothing. And so the Judge. with some sharp words
discharged them and Bernstein remained the master of
the field
lie cynnot however long maintain it. The nsttu-
ton be thus assashe will not be able to destroy His
objections to it do not commend themselves 70 common
sense The Grand Jury is not inqusitorial or antre
publican. but the contrary Itdoes not assal the cit
zen in secret nor give legal channel TO the denuncia
tons OF private malice All this is as sheer invention
fantasy and Misrepresentation Its tendency is rather
to prevent than favor groundless and malicious de-
nunciatous for it subjects all charges aud the evil
dence on which they are based TO thorough
sitting by considerable body OF impartial citizens be-
fore allowing them to come into court and pm, the ac
cused party upon his trial at oil. The secresy II ob
serves altogether for the interest of the citizens for
il prevents grouudless charges from being spread
abroad to his injury We DO not understand what
Mr. Bernstein would substitute for the invest-
cations of the Grand Jury, but probably 1t
would be public examination by single
magistrate. with lawyers on both sides, and all
tormality of a trial But il is difficult to see what eth
er the private citizen or public justice would gain by
such a course. Certainly the rights OF The former
would derive no new guaranty from the change for now
lie cannot be pronounced guilty without public trial
and he would have nothing more then Nor would the
latter be administered with any greater puncualty or
dignity At the same time mems characters would
suffer and great expense would be incurred in trials
that are now rendered needless by the preliminary in
vesteations of this excellent and useful body which
prevents cases from being tried where the prosecution
has not sufficient proof to render trial proper The
Grand Jury is designed protect at once the liberty
and character of the citizen and the rights OF the com
unty and of all the institutions inherited from that
Jealous love of liberty which has set up its marks all
over the English law none is worthy OF esteem
and preservation And we must say that our cotempo-
rary at 1t Louis would have done better to study the
subject little more thoroughly before launching out
into such reckless and uniounded assertions respecng