The weekly pioneer and Democrat. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn. Territory) 1855-1865, 1857-11-26
Di.p~n,ing with the Grand Jury.

From he Cincinnati Ealuirvr
Our late accounts from the Constitutional
Convention OF Oregon, inform US that pro-
vision has been adopted dispensing with the
grand jury as unnecessary, deemipg al exam
nation before a committing magistrate suii-
Gent This is an innovation Of considerable
bodness, and its propriety will not be
very readily perceived or acknowledged by
those who have given the subject no thought.
IL has been part Of our education to re-
gard the grand jury as an indispensable in
stitution and we cannot very readily I'M
derstand how the criminal jurisdiction OF
the State can BE- exercised without it, 1t
has, also, been considered as furnishing an
important barrier or ,afe-guard, on the part
Of the people, against any acts Of violence,
imposition or oppression which might be al
tempted to be practiced on them in war
or pace. by military commanders or other
arbitrary power. But such summary trials
and convictions, either by court, martial or
Star Chamber bodies, i not likely to occur
in any State in TIE Union, and it can be
provided against, the Oregon convention
thinks, by other constitutional provisions,
without the intervention Of a grand jury.
The advantages, as we understand claim
ed by the anti-grand jury advocates, for dis
pensing with ii, are
/. lts cheapness. II there is really no
necessity for tiff the citizen does not need
it as protection against oppression-it
would certainly be- great saving TO the
country were 1t dispensed with. Very few
cases now originate with the grand jury /;
and those that do are the result Of secret
process highly distasteful to free people.
>. Its interference with the business Of the
citizen. II now seldom happens that wit
ness is not required to attend before three
different tribunals to testify in the same case;
a committing magistrate, a grand jury and
the criminal court. II one Of them were
dispensed with, much annoyance and time
would be saved witnesses.
3. The avoidance Of injustice, which not
unfrequen'ly occurs, IN a citizen being in
dicted without having had an opportunity
to produce his witnesses. An indictment is
always, to a greater or les extent, Il stain on
mans character. Before magistrate the
accused always have an opportunity to pro-
duce witnesses, and be heard in person or by
COUNSEL
4. In the avoidance Of iavoritism by the
grand jury, from party or sectarian feeling,
toward person upon whose case il may be
called to act. We have known cases where
the accused were committed for crime, by a
magistrate after full hearing, and discharged
subsequently, because no bill was found
against them by the grand jury; the action
Of the grand jury being induced by improper
partial feeling for the accused, arising from
circumstances in no way connected with the
testimony.
The law could require preliminary hear
ing before a magistrate, on which, if the &C.
cused were held over, the prosecuting a,tor-
ney Of the county could base an Informal
ton. One-hslf the cases now heard in the
criminal courts Of this State are tried with
out any presentment or indictment ola grand
jury.
The main advantage Of the institution at
this day il, that it gives the prosecuting at
tornsy in important criminal cases an OPP
portunity Of becoming familiar with the
case before it comes up for hearing by the
petit Jury. In so far, however, that it is OF
advantage to the State, it operates adverse
ly to the accused when il the humane prin-
cipls upon which our criminal code is pro-
iessed to be based, were regarded, the State
should have no advantage by law over the
prisoner, either in the preparation or hearing
OF the case.
We are pleased that the experiment of
doing without grand jury is TO have a
trial. We are inclined TO the opinion tina,
the result will be favorable one.