The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1892-03-04
Who Is the Criminal :?

NATHANIEL W. DAWES. Il Boston dentist.
has been indicted by the United States
Grand Jury for cndeavoring to prevent an
indictment of the Whiskey Trust officers.
He admits that he talked with one OF
the jurors about the case. but explains
that what he said was merely that
il the members OF the trust could be
heard by the Grand Jury. an indictment
would never be found against them. He
AYERS also that the remark was made casu-
ally. in conversation with juror who is his
personal friend. and with no intention of
influencing the decision of the jury.
By this mere indiscretion. as Mr.. DAWES
regards 1t, he has got into serious trouble.
The offence of tho juror who went to the
Ercning Post with n report OF tho proceed
ings and deliberations Of the Grand Jury in
the case OF MCGLoRY. was not a mere
indiscreton. It was heinous and criminal
ly punishable. 1t was in fragrant violation
OF the oath of the juror. wherein he swcars
to keep secret the counsel Of the people of
this State. your fellows. and your own"
This oath OF secrecy extends to the vote
given in any case before the Grand Jury.
to the evidence delivered by wit
NOSES. and to tho communications OF
the jurors to each other. Any disclosure OF
these facts. unless under tho sanction OF
law, renders juror liable to punish
ment. Upon conviction OF tho offence.
he may DO fined and imprisoned.
He might be sworn to testify that
the testimony OF a witness In the trial OF an
indictment was directly contrary to his
sworn evidence before the Grand Jury: but.
generally to dvulge tho knowledge which
comes to him in the secrecy of the Grand
Jury room. is square violation OF his oath
Such grave and infamous offence was
plainly committed by the juror who
ran to the Erenin0 POSI- with story
Of the deliberations Of tho Grand Jury
in tho case Of McGLoRY. His yarn
was that the District Attorney and tho
Captain OF the police precinct having failed
to gather the evidence necessary for the in
dictment OF McGLoRY. individual jurors
went to tho mans place to obtain it for
themselves. and that tho Captain WAS
threatened with an indictment by the Grand
Jury unless no set to work forthwith to
produce the inculpatory facts. This Juror
treated the proceedings and deliberations
OF the Grand Jury room as II they wero
open and not secret He was in the room
as reporter Of tho Evening Post. though
no was sworn TO secrecy as a member OF
the Grand Jury.
We speak OF this informer and violator OF
his oath as one man: but perhaps he may
have partner or partners In his guilt
among his fellow jurors. How this Is
ought to be easily determinable. The
members OF tho Grand Jury who were not
thus culpable must be anxious to
clear themselves OF the suspicion of
such infamy. and to escape from any con-
sequent criminal proceedings. BY process
OF elimination the vlolator or violators of
the oath administered to the body can be
discovered; and to save their own honor the
innocent members must demand that tho
guilty be detected and exposed
Tho Grand Jury affords one OF the great
est safeguards OF the rights of the citizen,
and the secrecy to which4 is sworn is of
the first Importance u tl8 performance OF
that function. II stands between him and
public clamor and private malice. It's
function Is not only to hold answerable
those against whom there Ia Just ground
to charge the commission OF crime,
but also and not less imperatiyely to