Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1873-10-08
The Grand jury NYStem.


The session of the Grand Jury. which
makes searching inquiry into suspected vio-
latlons of law, naturally brings before men &
minds various arguments that have been
urged in favor of and against the system
itself. The discussions as to it's use and
value, have various results in ferent local =
ties, some States having done away with
the thing, and others having etained it as a
useful means of obtaining the ends of justice.
1t has been urged against the retention of
the grand jury as part of the machinery OF
our courts, that the examination made in the
jury room is really in the nature of trial +,
that the person suspected has no chance OF
making answer and does not even know that
his good name is brought in question ; and
that he is thus pOwerless to prevent sudden
arraig lment for crime which will certainly
give him an unwelcome notoriety, and tenn
pJrarily cloud his fair fame however clearly
he may in the end prove his innocence. 1t
is claimed that this jury, when it says % a
true bill, - virtually gives judgment against
the accused, and though it be not the final
Judgment, the accused is wronged 10 that it
is made on evidence that be may not answer
or even know
A further attack is on the ground that in
searching after evidence this body has far
reaching arm !; that g like a thief in the
night it comes by its agents and takes the
innocent citizen and brings him before a
secret inquisitor ial body to ask of him con-
corning things that he knows but may con-
slider himself IN honor bound not to tell that
he is, perhaps, unwillingly forced to be the
accuser of his best friends. and to violate
what are deemed the courteses and coniden-
ces of social intercourse and friendship.
Especially when law is upon the statute
book which any considerable portion of the
community looks upon with distavor and
whose violation is common, do these COM
pl4ints come to the front, and the members
of this " inquisitorial - body rece We con-
demnation if they make tull and car, fl
knowledge, and SO err in judgment as to
subjects or methods of inquiry, there is an
added bitterness to the complaints.
On the other hand advocates of the system
maintain that the judgment given in the
grand jury room is simply upon the question
of whether there should or should not be a
trial Of the accused; that the evidence is upon
oath, and must be such that undened or
I'll II
in convicting. The power of bringing man
to trial, of accusing him, must lie ,mewhere
and that this very system is a safeguard t.
the suspected. Without it the accusing
power which MY bring one into the notor-
ETY. of a public criminal trial would lie With
sIme 81 Igle prosecuting off Ter; aui on his
individual judgment, warped as is always
possible by prejudice or some peculiar consti-
tuition Of miod, and not on the combined judg
ment of dOz N or more men would rest one :
chance OF being put to the trouble of prActl-
cally proving his innocence.
Again it is urged that the rights and cop-
venience of the individual alone are not to
be looked after, but those of the b)iy of the
people as well. The danger MT ono man
may be put to exp 'nse and trouble to estab-
li.h his innocence is not the only danger.
There may be person suspected of violation
of law, who is 50 powerful that the tru q
danger is that he will continue to viola.e II
and er-ride the rights of the commuoity
or there may be 50 general violation of law
that the rights of society are thereby still more
strongly threatened. So the advoc ties OF tn
present system say that these Conditions were
the Very ones which gave it prominence a,
an attendant on courts and have helped t.
continue it in life TOR seven hundred years
In the first clear record of it, it appears az
an accusing and not as Judicial body.
meu were suspected whom g none wished OF
dared to accuse" there should be sworl
these " men of the neishborhood, or village
to declare the truth"
Finally, it is said that these men are sworl
TO do their work without hatred CT malice
and without fear or favor, and that no on
may have his affairs examined into belor
them, unless they are connected with th,
supp ,sed violation of law; nor can they pur
sue witnesses with inquiries that do not re
late to the same thing. That witnesses
have duties to the State as we'll as to th
individual, and the State having been tn
judge of what tends to destroy or harm it
the witness ought not to avoid revealin
these things, however his own opinion ma
differ from that of his fellows enacted int
Inv; and that it is not impertinent to as
OF him that be perform his duty TO the State
Tnus it is claimed that this secret trbu
nal stands between the State and teen,
safeguard to each, to enable the former t.
reach the powerful offender or defeat unlaw
full combinations, and to protect the latte
from being dragged forth to defend his innc
cence at the word of one man.
Which of the two theories is the correc
one our readers can judge as We'll as our
selves. We have but this to say. that it tn
grand jury system does tend to the enforce
ment of law, it should be retained; if not
some more powerful substitute should TAX
its pace. Laws are made to be observed
aud when once enacted there should be u
,ubt in the minds of friends or foes as
tleir enforcement. Standing as rules G
actor, the citizen should net violate them
HIS dury, if opposed to them, is to convinc
his fellows that they ought to be repealed
the citizen does not regard the fat of th
State, the latter should see to it that he doe
not so act with impunity.
CAPT. BUDDINeroV and his companion
from the Polaris, arrived in New York Satu,
day, oy the lnman steamer, City of Ant