Arizona silver belt. [volume] (Globe City, Pinal County, Ariz.) 1878-19??, 1883-09-15
Pima GRAND Jsry Report.


Te will be remembered that upon
Two occasions, we referred to the re-
port of a Pima county grand jury,
which was malignant and untruth-
fully slanderous of Col. j. G. Tiffany,
and bore upon its face the wilful in
tention to prejudice the public against
him. That paper is disgrace to the
judiciary of Arizona, and should never
have been received by the court. The
document was referred to in open
court, in Tucson, on the 11th inst, in
such way as to force a confession
from James A. Zabriskie, the u. S.
District Attorney, that he wrote it for
the foreman of the grand jury, James
H. Toole, who signed it as such. The
following from the Arizona Citizen
has reference to the same matter:
This morning the business of the
district court was flowing along as
smooth as current of a river when
undisturbed by sudden grades and
rocks. The spectators, imagining that
court was about over, drifted out into
the corridors and down the stairways
waiting to hear the closing proclama-
tions of the officers.
1t was not until United States At
torney Zabriskie had been talking
awhile that any one realized what was
going on. Colonel Zabriskie asked
for venire OF, Jurors in the Tiffany
cases, and wanted an order of court
directing United States Marshal lid
ball to summon the same.
| Judge Alexander Campbell, whose
fame for over thirty years on the Pa
cific Coast has been that of one of its
best criminal lawyers, sat by, and by
him was Judge Haynes, both gentle
men being counsel for Mr.. Tiffany.
To the proposition of Colonel Ia
briskie, Judge Campbell and Judge
Haynes made firm resistance. The
defence wish the venire to be sum-
moned by the sheriff alleging that the
United States Marshal is unduly pref
udiced against the defendant. The
court was compelled several times to
interrupt both sides in order to check
personalities. The prosecution al
legged that they had no feeling in the
matter beyond general desire to
faithfully fulfill their duties to prose
cute all offenses against the United
States. He denied that the Marshal
had displayed any more zeal in the
Tiffany cases than he had IN the mat
ter of the Huachuca barley frauds. In
fact Col. Zabriskie, as he said had
never met Mr.. Tiffany, and accused the
defense of being little jealous of him
| that they had never brought him
around for introduction, and he yet
had no personal acquaintance with the
defendant. He claimed it is also the
same way with the Marshal. Where
| then, he asked, could come in the
prejudice that the defense spoke of?
TO this Judge Campbell replied that
there were things they were sure o
that were not always susceptible Of
proof. He mentioned the fact of there
being two indictments for the same
offence, and that the defendant was
coming to trial without an examina
ton, and entirely IN the dark as to the
line of defense to be pursued. That
| he had been siandered, and that in
$ stead of the grand jury having made q
simple statement of facts, that theil
report contained libellous matter upor
which action could be brought, Upor
Colonel Zabriskie admitting that ht
$ wrote the report himself for the fore
man of the grand jury, Judge Camp
bell said he wanted no better evidcnc,
i that feeling or prejudice existed, anc
S that it pervaded the entire Office.
e After a great deal of argumen
Judge Sheldon announced that hi
would decide the question, as tt
whether the Marshal or Sheriff should
{ summon the jury, tomorrow morning
and ordered the court to stand ad
Ijourned.
!. The Judge, at the appointed tim
f for making known his decision, over
;. ruled Zabriskie's motion, and sus
a tanned Campbelrs, that the venire b.
b. forthwith drawn from the box.