The New York herald., 1870-01-16
THE KINGS COUNTY ELECTION FRAUDS.
Are Grand Juries a Dangerous
Inquisition
Further Arguments Before the COurt-Ap.
plication for the Proceedings Of the
Grand Jury to be Presented
to the Defence.

There was another lengthy argument IN the Court
Of Oyer and Terminer yesterday In the case OF the
parties indicted for election frauds, the counsel for
the accused, Mr.. Brtton claiming that the District
Attorney, s. D. Norris should furnish him with the
names Of the witnesses and the testimony taken be-
fore the Grand Jury.
The counsel had made motion to this effect in
told him that he had power to compel the District
Attorney to grant the request. The counsel made
the same motion before Judge Pratt yesterday.
The motion, ne said, involved three essential
points-hrst whether the prisoners were entitled to
know whether the proceedings before the Grand
Jury were regular and according to law; secondly,
whether the prisoners entitled toithe OF the
witnesses sworn before the Grand Jury, and thirdly
whether the prisoners entitled to know what the
testimony taken before the Grand Jury is against
them.
The counsel in supporI Of this motion read an am
davit OF some Of the defendants, who swore that
they needed this Information for proper defence and
tina they believed some Of the proceedings before
the Gran Jury had been irregular. The following
points Of law were then submitted
Trn within The power and province Of the Court
grant this motion The Court has general and entire control
0!sa ssasTs: :ssts. jury which in
% dos: soes Ia. :a
10 yasn IL sqs
IN 80 isr that grand Jurors n.vsr been s;isd g
i . rsh, 70 0' object to the proceedings Of : Grand
Jury II the indictment against him irrsgulary
illegally found the citizen has always been allowed
s s %
the above points and motion He claimed that public policy
ala no, that should % not hay: a. c.pSs %
Grand Jury not in harmony with the institutions OF the
government)
Tha-The present which fairly invokss the
discretion OF the Court in making this order The defendant
preliminary exampaton he shows that knowledge
Of these essential to make his Defence and that the
District Attorney the minutes and refuses TO fur
Fourfh-The prisoners been arrested bench
and allowed by the District Attorney to 90 al large
showing that he has 90 fear but at the trial they VIII DO
FVM-rhe crime charged IL not Of high grade Of
such nature alleged TO have been committed und
such aggravated circumstances as call for vndctvenm
exceptional treatment the part OF the officers o. the gov
enmen potoriousy common practice for Inc District
Attorney OF this county TO allow prisoner 10 bscoms pos
sesssd Of this information before or At bis trial.
The counsel contended that Il had grown to be q
prevailing custom that all preliminary EXAMINATIONS
90 public and Il was popular and consistent with
the rights OF the people. II mad never been thought
that there was any violation OF public policy IN these
public preliminary examinations before magistrates.
There was no principle OF law which Disseminated
between grand jury and magistrates examina.
ton, and he thought It should not DO left 10 dis
trict attorney TO say that In one case . prisoner
might know what the testimony vas against him
ten are now examined before q magistrate publicly
why not In the tenth case instead OF before the
Grand Juryp IL was not right to throw the veil OF
secrecy the proceedings OF the Grand Jury whom
II was open elsewhere. 1t was true that public
policy required secrecy enough to prevent an 90.