The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-12-22

shows IL. The district attorney is not the
of .cisl adviser of the grand jury, but the
Judge presiding is. He gives them instruc-
ton, and the writer Of the above must have
known that by the instructions Of the bench,
the grand jury appeared with their "hypo-
thetfcal case" asking advice. The proceed
ing was not remarkable; 1t was not UMPIRE
cedented, but occurs in almost every case OF
the assembling of q grand jury, and the
general instructions from the bench, in the
opening of their labors, always implies that
they shall return, when difficulty besets
them. The special business of the district
attorney is to prepare the indictments, and
other assistance that the conclusions
ofthe grand jury may come before the
court In proper form. When district at
torney or prosecuting attorney refuses or
manifests q disinclinstion to prepare an in
dictment, what course Is left to the grand
jury but to appeal to the COURT 1t was not
the Hypothetical case that the grand jury
presented to the court that pointed Gut
Harry Holloway aud w. G. Mason az tn
parties before them, but notorious public
information. The judge Is not sworn to 81
crecy in his charge to the grsndjury. 1t is al
ways done In open court, and when any no.
torieus crime Is before the community; as
fraud or murder, special instructions on
such crimes always form part OF
the charge, and the public recog-
ni1es its pertinency in the premises.
IT such an attack upon the bench
occupied by judges, Of which, to use the
Journals own language, no purer can be
found in this or any other country,is to pass
without notice, 1t must only be ascribed to
the generous and msgnsnimous forbearance
that can, in its spotless virtue, appreciate
no contempt from such source.
But the Journal Is not satisfied with "a
lacking the court and impugningi its action as
remarkable ard unprecedented. The grand
jury must have its share in the abuse. It
impugns their motives, too, and accuses
them of being "desd-b bent" on "fnding q
'law that was unknown to them," for the
purpose, as is clearly implied, of bring
ing in an indictment against Mr.. Holloway.
What facts has the Journal upon which
to base so serious charge against
the grand Jury? Is it aware that there was
any controversy in the jury room between
the district attorney that showed that they
thought it their duty to bring in an indict-
ment and could not be persuaded to desist?
Is the Journal aware that the grand jury
did or did not seek advice from the court
in private and irregular way? Has the
Journal been made acquainted with any
facts that could lead 1T TO make this attack
upon these men. sworn TO do their duty; If
so, from what source has it these facts?
The same fiimsy evasion OF direct attack
was done with the judges, in a
few words disclaiming belief that they in
tended to do wrong, thus adding insult to
injury.
Again yet fiercer and less concealed as
sault Is made upon the witnesses, and their
disreputsble character insinuated by the ap-
palling facts disclosed to the public that they
had been dismissed from the postoffice and
the Journal office, and their incompetency
implied, as il they had violated their oath as
witnesses, In revealing what they had testi-
fed in the iury-room. When did 1t become
a rule in the courts that witness before the
grand jury should swear not to reveal his
testimony after it was given. There is no
such rule, aud the Journal makes this point
to impair the eredibility of their testimony.
II the testimony should come before another
jury. II not for this, what other object
could be in view7 Not willing to stop at
this, 1t compares the.grsnd jury to looms,
and the witnesses to slaves mustered under
the shadow of the jury room. The public
may judge of the object and policy of an ar
ticle pending an important proceeding of
the Federel Court, when that article thus
attacks judges, jury and witnesses. Dees
it look like an attempt to prevent an in
dictment? The Journal is concerned about
one of the witnesses, and asks if he was the
author of TIE dispatch to the New
York Herald that Col. Holloway
had been indicted. Now, there is an
officer of the court sworn not to
reveal the proceedings of the grand
jary room, and the Sentinel asks if he tele-
grsphed to Senator Morton that no indict-
ment had been found, and would not be
found, before the jury had completed their
investigations. How comes it to pass that
when judges, jurymen and witnesses are
maligned, this officer is spared any criticism?
Will the Journal answer?
The Sentinel has not sought in this review
to prejudice the case under investigation.
Believing the court to be pure, the jury
honest and inclinedt to do their duty, and the
witnesses competent though they have been
dismissed from the Journal Office and post
Office, we can safely await their action, be-
lieving that justice will be done, and II will
be with no feelings but those of sadness II
1t shall appear in the performance of their
sworn duty they find 1t necessary to bring
in true bill. But as we honor the courts,
and would guard these institutions of JUS
tice, we could not suffer this covert attack of
the Journal to pass without complete ex-