The Evening critic., 1882-02-21
singular Jurisprudence.

touching the transactions in the grand
jury room are limited, we will not under
take to discuss the question of fact. 1t
might be said however, by way of explain
ing the situation, that perhaps a decision of
the grand jury to close testimony in cer-
tain cases may have been adopted by the
prosecution as a practical presentment, and
that an expert in the Attorney Generals
office has been directed to draw indictments.
If this be true, the indictments so drawn
must be returned to the grand jury and
voted on separately, before they can be
found" as the legal phrase runs.
But this is not the really interesting
portion of our esteemed contemporaries
announcement wherefore we pass it by,
and proceed to consider the following re-
markable statement:
1t is said that the printed reports of the
special agents, Tidball and Shallcross, have
been placed in the hands of the grand Jurors
as testimony against the defendants. This has
been done by Special Agent Tidball, who a
short time ago appeared before that body as n
witness, and took that opportunity to give to
each grand juror printed copy OF this docu-
ment, which is printed pamphlet of some
sixty or seventy pages and filled with mlsrep-
reservations Of facts. Each grand Juror when
given a copy was instructed to " take 1t home
and study it so that they would understand
the case" In addition to this the printed
testimony taken before the Congressional In
vestigating committee at the last Congress has
been largely used and read to the grand jury,
and Woodward and Tidball have been allowed
TO frequently come before the grand jury and
make latored speeches for the purpose of In
huencing them to find indictments.
As we said before we accept these state
ments in the absence of authentic infor-
nation of our own. If it be true that de-
tectives engaged in working up case"
have been admitted in the capacity of pros
ecuting officers to the presence of the grand
jury, to make speeches and peddle tracts in
lieu ofaproducing testimony, and for the
avowed purpose of influencing" grand
jurors, "to find indictments" then it can
only be said that the spectacle is novel in
jurisprudence and that the results of such
operations, whatever they may be, cannot
stand the review of the court, before which
all the facts can be brought out.
1t may be worth while to remark that the
mode of procedure described by our es-
teemed contemporary is exactly the mode
which MacVeagh, Cook and Gibson endeaT-
ored to establish last spring, but which
President Garfield objected to as being con-
trary to law and custom. We have sur
missed for some time that Mr.. Bliss was en-
deavoring to resurrect this mode of proce-
dure, and the statements of the Post
above quoted, if accurate, would tend
to confirm that opinion. 1t has
has for some time been no secret-and
particularly since the collapse of the
Nebraska cases-that the prosecution was
desperate, and that every resource has been
exhausted to procure indictments" in
order that there might be something to
show for" all the noise that has been made
and all the money expended in the So
called investigation"
This being known, the story of ouI
esteemed contemporary, the Post, stands
circnmstantially corroborated at the outset
and in the absence Of specific evidence to
the contrary may be accepted as fact
In this view the only comment to be made
is that the law and usages regulating in
quest by grand jury have been most sig
nally violated by the appearance of de
tectiyes in the grand jury room who
under the guise of witnesses, discharge
the function of special pleaders for the
prosecution by making ]abored speeches
and distributing pamphlets " for the mem
bers of the jury to stake home with then
and read ~
In this connection it may be well to re
call attention to the able charge of Assc
ciate Justice Field on the duties of gran
Jurors, which we published some days az,
The learned Justice said +:
To Justify the finding OF an indictment yO
must be convinced, so far as the evidence b.
fore you goes, that the accused is guilty.
other words, you ought not TO find an indictDle
0niess, bIyOur judgment, The egideRce before 30
unexplained and uncontrddicted, ar0ald Gdrrd
a eongiction 5y a petit juyy. Some
you, also, may have personal knowled
OF the commission OF public often
against the laws OF the United States,
OF facts which tend to show that such
offense has been committed, or possibly
tempts may be made 10 influence corruptly
improperly your action as grand Jurors.
you are personally possessed OF such knoy
edge, you should disclose II TO your associat
and II any attempts TO influence your acti
corruptly or improperly are made you shou
inform them OF II also, and they Will act up
the information thus communicated as
presented to thom In the first instance by
District Attorney. You Will
allow private prosecutors TO intrude the
selves into your presence and present ac
sations. Generally such parties are actual
by private enmity, and seek merely the grl
fication Of their personal malice
We have been led, gentlem
10 give these instructions upon
nature Of your duties and the limits to
sphere OF your Investigations, because an
preston widely prevails that the institut
Of the grand Jury has outlived Its usefulne
an impression which has been created from
disregard Of those limits, and the facility W
which II has. unfortunately, often been us
as an instrument for the 0rati aedti0a Of pYit
malice.
1t is not possible to add anything to
force of Justice Fields observations. II
they embrace the true theory of inquest
grand jury no one will question.
But if what the Post this morning S
is true, and we have no reason to doubt
then it is clear that the action Of grs
jurors has been influenced" by "priy
prosecutors," who have "intruded the
selves in order to present accusation
whereby the grand jury has been FUSED
an instrument for the qualification
private malice" All these facts must