Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1857-07-24
Correspondence.
For the Standard.

For the Standard.
Mr.. EDIToR,-I see by an editorial
in your last number, that you seem to
question the propriety of the grand jury
system, and enquire why not abolish it.
1t is believed by wise jurists, that the
grand jury or grand inquest of the coun-
Improperly understood and administered,
is one of the bulwarks of our liberty, and
forms the very foundation of personal
security against false accusations and
protection against the lawless depreda-
tons of inscriptions villains.
If it were abolished, what would we
have in its stead? Should every indi-
vidual be an informing officer, or should
that duty be entrusted to single States
Attorney or county Solicitor? Every
man of experience is aware that there is
more of vaLor than discretion In the Off
cial acts of States Attorneys. Some
will be too cool and conservative, while
others rush into the business with hot
haste; and the very atmosphere they
breathe, to them sceHIs to be itnpreguated
with crime. A justice court or arbitra-
ton cannot occur within the range OF
their guns without perjury; and crime Of
every description is fearfully on the in
crease. To give man of that tempera-
ment the exclusive control of bringing
accusations against offenders either real
or supposed, We all know would be very
unsafe for the citizen.
States Attorneys are Of ike passions
with other men, and liable to be operated
upon by various influences. Attending
to civil causes they find plenty of mel
who are their clients to make accusation
and be must De more than human VIII,
: would not be norSpr less affected there
| by. We have no scasion to go to Eu
rope, or the Sands RI Islands, or even t
Kansas, for ptactitel illustrations of tn
: results 40 its moufe of things supposed
1t its back. Eve, that the abuse of th
grant J.~.ar sheen may be made th
/ means of oppression to individuals.
4 agree that the mere statement of fact,
2 fact it be, that the grand jury in thi
j county at the last term of the count
D court, returned forty bills of indictmen
o thirty odd true bills, and the others /" NJ
found" shows eonclusively, not that th
|, system is defective or bad, but that it Wa
P in that instance abused. And again, yo
t say no man was convicted on trial befol
S the traverse jury, who was indicted
e the grand jury. This also proves q
r abuse of the system, and is no reason
:, argument for the abolition Of the graz
d jury.
y Grand jurors are brought from ever
e, part of the county. and are not general
T. supposed to be affected by local prejudice
or controlled to any great extent by fes
favor, or hope Of reward. But the pr
T. sumption is they viii act independent
a fearlessly, and honestly. They are d
Sc Ege'atly to inquire, and true presentme
id make; not to inquire of the States 4
T. torney, nor of such witnesses as he m
st think best TO call, but they are to be 4
C. ligent in their inquiry, not after evider
st to justify finding a true bill, but after t
st truth. They are to present things tru
to not falsely. They are not to charge
be man by indictment until they hear all |
witnesses who know anything that VOL
tend to give them light in reference to
Irs charge. There never was a greater
St ror than to suppose that the grand j.
by were simply to hear the accuser, &
IN, such witnesses as he names without 90
nd farther. This would be a violation
= their oaths. Again, it has come to
iss that our States Attorneys speak of
nd grand jury; and / have noticed /
Lhe States Attorneys spend all their tim'
the grand jury room, and / am told