The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1893-12-14
the grand jury, as follows:

|
There is no authority given the
grand jury by any law OF this state to
investigate the management of county
affairs with a view to expressing the
opinion OF the grand jury as to how
county affairs ought to be managed.
The management OF county affairs are
intrusted by the law and the people
to the county commissioners court
and other county officers, and the
only investigation the grand jury is
authorized to make is with view to
ascertaining whether or not county
officials have violated ally penal law
for which they should be indicted,
and no report by the grand jury of
what the evidence taken discloses
should be made, except such report Is
involved In the presentation of an in
dictment In court where q penal law
has been violated.
The Revised Civil Statutes provide
for the appointment of q committee of
| expert accountants by the district
Judge, upon suggestion of the grand
jury, to examine and report on the
condition of county finances; AID the
report such committee may make Is
governed by article 982 Of said stat
utes, which reads as follows:
"Said committee shall at the earliest
practicable day after their appoint.
ment make TO said district court re-
port In writing In detail, stating
whether the books aud accounts re-
quired to be kept by the provisions of
this title are correctly kept In accord
ance with said provisions, setting
forth fully the condition of the
finances Of the county, the state of
each officers account, and specify all
irregularities, omissions, or malieas.
ance of any kind that they may dis
cover; said report shall be signed ana
sworn to by said committee aud filed
In the office of the clerk OF said dis
trict court, and the attention of the
grand jury called thereto ac soon
after the filing of the same as practi-
cable.n
The duties of such committee, 1t
will be observed, would be limited to
statement of the condition of the
books and the finances of the county,
and to rep. rt as to the violations
of law by omission or cOp1mie-
sion: but neither such COM
mittee nor the grand Jury
would be authorized to substitute
their judgment for that OF the county
officers as to the proper manner OF
managing the county finances, or
other county affairs involving no vio.
lation of law. II the grand jury think
1t proper, and shall SO suggest to the
court, the court will appoint such
committee of expert accountants and
instruct them to make such investiga-
tion and report, as is authorized by
the statutes.
It will be observed that Ii is not the
purpose OF the court to inveigh against
the freest public criticism of official
acts by any citizen who may differ
with q public officer as to the proper
discharge of the duties of his office.
The public records OF official acts are
open to the criticism of any citizen;
and he is free to etate, or write and
publish, his personal opinions as to
the acts OF public officers. Neither
does the court condemn as error or
endorse as correct the opinion which
the grand jury expressed In their re-
port as to the proper management Of
county affairs.
But the court advises the
grand jury that 1t bas
exceeded It's legitimate powers as q
grand jury In reporting its investlga.
tions and opinions to the vourt as to
the management of the county affairs
not found to involve any violation OF
penal laws, and that whatever the
members OF the grand jury may think,
write or speak Of the management OF
county affairs as individual citizens,
the court cannot receive an official re-
port from them as grand Jury on
such subject, as neither the grand
ury nor this court can exercise any
authority over county affairs which
have been trusted TO the exclusive
discretion and judgment OF other
county authorities, except when the
law may be violated by such authori-
ties.
What the court has here said has
not been said In spirit OF censure of
the grand Jury, but in spirit OF ad-
vice and instruction to the grand jury
In a matter which the court could not
allow to pass unnoticed without o
failure of the duty devolved on the
court to keep within its own sphere of
action, and to advise The grand jury
to enable it TO avoid errors.
Ifit appeared that the grand jury
had wilfully exceeded its powers with
improper motive censure by The court
OF their conduct might be required,
but as 1t docs not appear but what
the grand jury acted In good faith and
with patriotic purpose to discharge
what they conceived to be q public
duty, the court does not feel called
upon to do more than to place the
court aud grand jury In proper atti-
tude under the law, by declining to
receive and make q record of the
court the improper report referred to,
and advising the grand jury as TO ouch
error to the end that 1t may not be re-
heated. r. O. MORRIS,
District Judge.
The Cou0hlin Trial