The Daily bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Hawaii]) 1882-1895, 1893-08-15

see how its wanderings into the
realm of judicial polity could have
been checked by either lawyer or
layman of responsibility. However,
the article in question was not a
contribution, but, even if it had
been, its arguments and not its
author alone concern the public.
The Star has yet to show that the
evils, against which it invokes the
institution of grand jury, have not
been burning question with
Press Associations in communities
where the grand jury is an old insti.
tuition. 1t has still to explain the
passage of laws in some States where
grand juries exist, to require persons
bringing libel suits to deposit Sc
curity for the costs. And, in regard
to criminal prosecutions, the Star
ought to know that the evil here is
not with regard to commitments, as
the smallest country magistrate com
mits accused persons for trial where
there is grand jury the same as
here. In criminal prosecutions,
the grand jury never come in till
the opening of the court, when
they pass upon indictments exactly
as the presiding judge of jury term
does here The grand jury have
nothing to do with arrests, except
when crime is discovered incident
ally in their Investigations. They
have no power to interfere with war
rants OF arrest signed by magis
trate, nor with preliminary examina
tions or commitments by magis-
trates, nor with commitments by
coroners. Men lie in Jail for months
under magisterial commitments be-
fore the grand jury know anything
about them. The trouble in this
country--if the Star wishes to be
informed--is that the laws allow and,
in cert ain circumstances, enjoin the
issue of warrants of arrest instead
of penal summons against persons
who are reasonably certain to an
swer their accusers in open court
without being put under any other
restraint than legal command to
appear. This is why an editor is
treated like a burglar or murderer,
when accused of damaging private
character while perhaps he was do
ing what he deemed his duty to the
public. The situation is made worse
by the gross partially Of magis-
trates and police, who fix the bail
and handle the accused according
to their politics. Thus the bail
standard in libel eases for opponents
of the family compact" here is
$500, as against 500 or only personal
recognizance for editors who sup
port the ''elect," and the opposition
editor is further liable to be thrust
into dirty cell while the prelmi-
naries are being arranged. All a
grand jury could do against such
abuses would be to protest against
them, and their presentments might
lead to remedial legislation. A
grand jury, further, would be help
less against partiality in sentences
for criminal libel in the higher
courts. Within a period Of three
years two editors were convicted Of
libel. The first belonged to the Re,
form party and had absolutely nc
defense for having charged two emi
nent puplic men with stealing pub
lie documents. He was fined $50
The second belonged to the Nationa
Reform party and in the heat of al
} election had accused Reform Min
ister of having disregarded the law
in administering the public lands
He was fined 5000. What could {
grand jury do against such out
rages2