The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1857-11-25
Dispensing with the Grand Jury.

DtSpenSluS Win the Graud Jury.
Ourlate accounts from the Constitutional Con-
vention of Oregon inform US thai provision has
been adopted dispensing with the grand jury as
unnecessary, deemins an examination before o
committing magistrate sufficient. This is an
innovation ofeonsiderable boldneSs, and its pro-
priety will not be very readily perceived or ac-
knowledSed by those who have given the sub.
ject no thought.
1t has been part Of our education (says the
Cincinnati Etqmrsr) to regard the grand jury as
an indispensable institution; and we cannot re-
ry well understand how the criminal jurisdic-
ton Of the State can be exercised. 1t has also
been considered as furnishing an important bar
ricr or safeguard on the part oithe people, a
gainst any acts ofviolencc, imposition or oppres-
sion which might be attempted to be practiced
on them in war or peace, by military command
ers or other arbitrary power But such summary
trials and convictions, either by courts-martal
or Star Chamber bodies, is not likely to occur in
any State ofthe Union, AMI they can be provided
against, the Oregon convention thinks, by other
constitutional provisions, without the in.eryen-
ton of grand jury.
The advantages, as we understand, claimed by
the anti. grand jury advocates, for dispensing
with it, are:
/. Its cheapness. If there is really no ne
cesSity for it-lf the citizen does not need it as
protection against .opression-it would certainly
be great saving to the country were it dispen-
scd with. Very few cases now originate with
the Grand Jury; AMI those that do are the re-
suit Of a secret process highly distasteful to
free people.
2. Its interference with the business Of citi-
zen. 1t now seldom happens that witness is
not required to attend before three different tri'
bunalS to testify in tho same case a committing
magistrate, grand jury and the criminal court.
If one of them were dispensed with, much an
noyance and time would be saved witnesses.
8. The avoidance ofinustca, which not un-
frequently occurs, in citizen being indicted
without having had auopportunity to produce
his witnesses. An Indictment is always to a
greater or less extent stain on mans char
acter Before magistrate the accused always
has an oppornity to produce witnesses, and be
heard in person or by counsel.
t. In the avoidance offavoritism by the grand
Jury, from party or secarian feeling, toward
person upon whose cases whore the accused
were committed for crime, by magistrate after
full hearing, AMI discharged subsequently, be-
cause no bill was founl against them by the
grand jury; the action ofthe grand jury being
induced by improper partial feeling for the ac-
cused, arising from circumstances IN no way
connected with the testimony.
The law could require preliminary hearing
before magistrate, on which, if the accused
were held over the prosecuting attorney of the
county could base an information. One half
the cases now heard in the criminal courts OF
Of this State are tried without any presentment
or indictment Of grand jury. @
The m lin advantage Of the institution at this
dav is, that it gives the prosecuting attorney in
important criminal cases an opportunity oil be-
coming familiar with the case before it comes
up for hearing by the petit jury. In so tai, how
ever that it is of advantage to the State, it op-
crates adversely to the accused; when il the
human principle upon which our criminal code
protessad to be based, were regarded, the State
should have no advantage by law over the pris-
oner, either in the preparation or hearing ofthe
case.
We are pleased that the experiment ofdoing
without grand jury is to have trial. We
are inclined to to the opinion that the result
will be favorable one.