The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1889-02-07
CAN KEEP NOTHING BACK
THE GRAND JURY'S RIGHT TO ASK
WHATEVER IT WANTS TO.


and the Witnesses ArRument-The
Lester Decision Judge Adams
Ruling-A Lun in the Investigation.
The recaleitrant witnesses before the
grand jury, Charles F. PrenderGaAt, S. l.
Lazaron, d. Y. Dancy and Charles P. R1s-
signol we're before Judge Adams yestsr-
day afternoon, and under his ruling thew
were required to answer any questions
that might be directed to them by
the jury, whether the questions were
or were not confined 10 case
pending. except that the witnesses could
decline 70 answer any questions tend
ing to criminate themselves. The witnesses
We're recalled 10 the grand jury room,
and it is said that the answers of Messrs.
Prendergast ald Lazaron W tn reference TO
the keeping open Of any saloon on the day
Of the election were satisfactory. and the
questions relati g to bribery at elections all
the witnesses declined TO answer undo the
admitted statutory ruls.
It was $3.50 o'clock when Solicitor General
Fraser brought up the matter In open court
The court house was crowded, and ia sddi-
ton to the offending witnesse, there we're a
great many Others present with SubpoBBas
Moulden e. al. for misdemeanor.n They
we're anxiously awaiting the result.
THK SOLICITOR GENERALS STATEMENT.
TIE solicitor general reported the facts OF
the day previous, setting forth that Ms srs.
Prendergast. Lszaron, Dancy and Rossigool
had been before the grand jury and had
declined TO answer certain questions, among
which was whether or not they knew OF
any parties who sold their votes on the day
Of the city election or had tickets calling
for a davis labor or any other consideration
for their votes, and that Messrs Prendsr-
CAST and Lazaron had declined 10
answer whether they knew of any
place being kept open for the sale of
liquors on the day Of the election. The so
lcitor went on 10 state that tie grand iurv
had no power to compel answers, and that
it wanted to know what course IL should
pursue. He had, therefore brought the
witnesses complained Of into court to show
why rule for contempt should not be
taken against them if they persisted in their
refusal TO answer the questions.
= L. LazRron, Esq, appeared for him
self. He said that be had been subpRuasi
in the case against Perez Moulden, ct al,
and be was perfectly willing to answer any
question about any msde leanOr that Percy
Mouldsn uIa7 have committed, but he
didn't think it right and proper to answer
general questions. The state might AS well
have emD died the entire community in
the subpoena, as the general ''et al" His
refusal 10 answer was based upon the de-
clsiol Of Tie supreme court, J ustice Hal
presiding, in the case of Lester in re. n
Georgia Reports, where Justice Hall had
decid d that the grand jury could not go
into general investigation, in a general
manner for anybody and anything. He
read the following from the deciSio n:
TIE LEsrER DECISION.
That the powers Of the body are induisitorial
70 a certain extent IS undenable, yet they have
TO be exercised within well defined limits ANY
thing thet they can find out by their own iu-
curry and observation IS Legitimate and praise
worthy, but they have no authority TO force
private person. or the officers u other courts
10 disclose TO them VINO NAV have violated the
public laws and the names Of persons by whom
such infrdctiOus can be established-in short
to make every man spy upon tn
conduct OF his neghbors aud ass ciates
ana compel him to violate the confidence i'm
pl ed IN holding social intercourse with his
fellows by forcing him TO become public IN
former. such ar exercise of power woul be
in derogaiion Of general principe, essent al 0
the enjoyment OF rights regarded as sacred and
paramount in the intercourse between man and
ma1; and these rights have been carefully
guarded, not only by the spirit Of our law, but
by its express enactmens. TIE grand Jury can
find no bill nor make any presentment except
upon the testimony of witnesses sworn in a
pertIculsr case. where the party is charged
with eciied oae.se, to speak the truth, thu
whole truth, aud nothing but the truth and thi,
court 10 Ashburns case, Is Ga.
PAS held where sweeping oath
materially different from that presented
by the statutes was administered 20 witnesses
that an indictment found on testimony OF per
sons 80 sworn was invalid and ought to he
qusshed and dismissed. II such is necessarily
th- result 81 finding uuon an investigation
THUS conducted. where is the authority for sub
poFnsinE witness 10 testify before the grand
jury as 70 his general knowledge u violation Of
the penal laws, when this fact has not been dis.
covered bV the grand jury, or any member
thereof, and when that BODY KIN VS. nothing of |
any person connectet herewith or guilty there
or II IS the right OF any citizen or any iudl. |
Vldual OF lawful age to come forward and prose. |
cute for ofenses against the state, or when he |
does not wish 10 become the prosecutor |
ne may give information of the |
fact 70 the grand Jury. or any
membo- thereof, and when that body knows |
nothing OF any person connected herewith or !
guilty thereof II IS the right Of any citizen or !
any individual Of lawful age, to come forward |
and prosecute for offensss against the stat or |
when he does not wish to become the prosecu |
tor, he may give information of the fact TO the |
grand jury, or any member OF the body, and in /
either case II will become tueir duty 20 investi |
gate Tue matter thus communicated 70 |
them, OF made known to one or them /
whose obligation il would be TO Law his |
information before that body. This, however, |
differs widely from forcing a person to reveal |
hlS know edge to tie INCEST This latter process |
Is 10 the nature % an unlawful search against |
which citizens are protected by conditional |
provisions Neither houses. nor desks nor sec |
reta1es nor other places % deposit can by such |
general proceedings be opened aud rhed Of |
their contents for the purpose OF enabling 1
The grand jury TO find out whether a crime /
has been committed, With a view Of pre.
sentlng It, General warrants issued for ac- /
comprising such "A purpose are absolutely /
VOID, and VII afford no protection to any officer
when called upon 10 answer for an Invasion |
ot personal rights under such circumstances In |
Ssi Wing bus much however, we 90 not intend TO /
intimate that the state prosecutng officer |
may not, II he sees proper to do 60 make search
for evidence and secure It's forthcoming by |
serving subpepas upon witnesses ia auticlpa- |
ton Of the eupanelng aud qualification Of The !
grand jury, before whom tho matter IL to bs |
Investigated: be Is certainly not bound ~ DO |
50. but be violates no official duty IN thus act
Ing provided he ~ careful 10 state ia the sub.
poena the names OF the parties aud the oTeuse
10 be Investigated; 30 that this is an ethical !
rather than legal question, to be determined
by him IN accordance with his own sense OF pro
priety and right.
TIE WITNESSES SIDE or IT.
Mr.. Lazaron repeated hat his subpoena
specified only one individual and that was
Percy Moulden, Of whom he knew nothing.
aud 50 stated. I'VE might have been asked /
about the eutire county with the same pro-
priety,' he added. lie dsc.aimed any dis !
courtesy 10 the grand jury or the court.
but he tad been guided Ivy what he con |
celved 10 be his rights.
b. A. Denmark, Esq, representing Mr.. |
naucV rarra.ent that f.i cli.,.4 1. 7 - ]