The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-03-01
STOKES GRAND JURY.
Argument Of Counsel Against ard For tho
Legal Action Of the Grand Jury.
ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT.

ANOTHER ADJOURNMENT
The case In which the legality OF the Grand Jury
which indicted EDWARD $. Stokes for the murder Of
James Fisk, Jr, being tried was resumed yester.
das morning In the Court OF Oyer ana Terminer be-.
fore Judge Cardozo.
The District Attorney not having put in auy evil
dence contradcting the facts proven by Stokes,
counsel, the argument on the law points winch had
been instituted by Defendants counsel was re-
sumed.
Counsel for prisoner read from the constitution Of
this state those portions referring to grand and petit
Juries or giving power to follow the common law IN
reference 10 the selections OF those bodies. IL had
been proven III this case that men other than those
on the petit jury lists had Leen placed the Grand
Jury, some on their own solicitation and some at
the instance OF Judge Bedford. He quoted from
English statute law, which is now followed in this
State in reference to the selection Of Grand JurIes.
to show that unless the Grand Jurors were selected
in strict conformity in all respects with the require
ments OF the statute the Grand jury, or so-caIed
Grand Jury, could have no power to find indlct-
ment II there upon the Grand Jury that In
dicted Stokes any person or persons not selected
by the officers 10 whom 1t perraiHed bJ law to
select grand jurors, the whole BODY Of grand
porting to be found by them VAS void.
be then quoted the dlctun OF Lord Brongnam
Client and said he was thoroughly lmbued with the
same spirit LORD RrOugnam as 10 the sacred duty
OF counsel to know nvne other than tnelr clients,
and TO exhaust every legal process IN their behalf.
Lawyers who SAID they knew nothing OF criminal
law, and affected to be ashamed Of being known
as criminal lawyers, did not Know what Lhey were
uttering. The knowledge OF criminal law presup-
rreatest LAWYERS in all Cnrsiendom were those who
thoroughly understood the principles underlying
wnat Is known as criminal law TINS , was not sim.
Of the highest moment relating TO constitutional
law-afecting the rights and liberties OF all CITIZENS
If Grand Jury could DO Illegally empanelled, as
this one mas been shown to be; II men could get on
Grand Jurles as they had o this one. who were not
eligible, and simply Tor the asking; II oher men,
VINO had been drawn grand jurors, could get ex-
cused through favorsm, AS they mad Ia this case.
1t was time for the people to know it. II q man or
any NUMBER Of men could control or influence
Grand jury as this one had, apparently, been con-
rrolled and influenced aud the pose Of inJur.
Ing Stokes, 1t was time the people should know it
and understand the risk they run from such loose
49, ''''A'''' ID" DISTRICT ATTORNEY GARvIN
said that so mucn had been said on the other side
or ~ ws 2a able on the o1er SIDE
had exhausted every point, and cited every pOssi-
swering ali this solitary anu alone; but he mad the
solace OF knowing that ne was addressing Judge
who had given right decisions In cases 10 winch
tack anu demOsh great Institutions Tor trivial rea-
sons and that great lawyers had frequently failed In
such attacks when made before the present Judge.
and the Judges decisions nad invariably been sus-
tanned by higher court. lie SAID tnat although ne
merits OF the ne could not and would not tnd
1aulL with them tor exhausung every effort to de-
fend their client. The Indictment charged stokes
MIR. M'KEoN HERE sPRANG TO HIS FEET
ana SAID, in most energetic manner, that there
was no indictment, the socalled Indictment being
only piece OF paper presented by moo, and ne
did not want the District Attorney to be pernSted
TO assume that there was q legal lndlctment.
Judge CardOzO SAID tnat great LATITUDE mad been
given to counsel Tor stokes and the same courtesy
should be extended to the District Attorney
MIR. McKeOn resumed his seat as qucAy as No
had arisen from II.
The District Attorney, resuming, said that the
Indictment charged Stokes win killing Fisk, and no
one douDted the truth OF the finding OF the Grand
have happened In the selection OF this Grand ury,
but that they had found true bill against muir
ali the objections raised against tins GRAND Jury
were of character scarcely worth answering, ana
some Of them that seemed Of gravity at first sight,
point had been mace that one OF the grand jurors
mad mot been oT as per pves aa ta
elective franchise. Authorizes were Thea cited TO
show that these causes ala not render these men
disqualified from serving as grand Jurors. Many
men VINO were neither AstOrs nor Stewards would
make as good Jurors, or perhaps better than men
as wealthy as AsCor or Stewart, and would not be
as likely try 10 shirk the duties appertalnlng
thereto.
Jurors were exempt and, therefore, not eligible.
Exemption was no bar 10 servca II the party
10 and s aa been IN
the present case. There mas been no PROOF
that any OF the grand jurors were not men OF good
character, nor was there any hlaterlal proof Oh the
fact charged that the Board appointed to select the
grand Jurors knew that some OF those selecled
were not qualified to serve. All authority was then
cited from the famous Morgan abduction case to
show that as long as the grand jurors were sub
stantiaiy qualified as the law directs trivial mat
ters as 70 properly entering their names on The list.
and similar matters, such as the exact signing OF
the list were not Of vital Importance. II mad been
cOntended on the other side that the list OF grand
jurors In the present case was not signed by the
Board appointed to select the Grand Jury and that,
that Judge Barbour. the chairman Of the Boards
ana the Commissioner Of Jurors who acted
as Clerk of the Board had signed the list !;
ana that, doubtless was q SUBSTANTIAL conformity
with the law directing the selection oil grand jurors
which law, In fact, was merely directory, leaving
some latitude OF Judgment among the memoirs OF
the Board, and was not peremptOrily mandatory as
to every little detail. The list, 80 signei. was duly
filed in conformity with law, IN the County Clerks
Office. 1t had en- endeav0ref by the other side TO
introduce evidence 10 the effect that FISK, person.
ally and otherwise, had endeavored to influence the
Grand Jury to find an Indictment against stokes and
Mansfield, but such evidence had been properly
ruled out
Alter further argument the Court adjourned.