The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1897-06-02
ISIT 4 JURY At ALL?
NOES E. CLAPP SAYS The PsEtDO
GRAND &&2tY MAY NOT DE-
PpIVE
AMY CITIZEN OF HIS RIGHTS.
E5T1 - Fcy,vLgg.ED TO HAVE ALL PRO
CEEC9XGS AGAINST HIM con-
TORM TIC Law.
THE COUNTY ATTORNEY DEMURs
To, the Motion to Quash the Bickei,
SchcfTer ard Walker Indfct-
mcntS-JUry Awaits Results.

It looks as though the work of the
present grand jury up to date wouldn't
count. At any rate the lawyers repre-
senting Albert Scheffer insisted and
argued at considerable length before
Judge Lewis yesterday morning that
MT Scheffer had not been indicted by
a properly constructed grand jury.
County Attorney Anderson practically
admitted as much, by demurring to the
motion to quash the Indictment Inc
motion was based on the ground that
Grand Juror Lindquist is not resi-
dent of Minnesota, was not citizen
of the United States when drawn to
serve on the grand jury. The county
attorney comedies the disability of Mr..
Lindquist, but raises a technicality
himself in opposition thereto. Admit
ting that Juror Lindquist has no right
to serve on the grand jury, the county
attorney insists that the time to object
to Mr. Lindquist was when the grand
jury was sworn in. Yes, say the coun-
sci for Mr.. Scheffer and Mr.. Kittson,
but our clients were not indicted until
after the grand jury was sworn in.
How could we have interposed an OBJ
lection to the list of grand jurors when
they were sworn in? We didn't know
we were going to be indicted.
In reply, County Attorney Anderson
shakes his head and eXclaims: TITS too
bad, and l am very sorry, but, I'M
fortunately, there is no statute to help
cut Mr.. Scheffer and Mr. Kittson. 1t
was their misfortune that they were
indicted after this grand jury was
sworn in. There is no law to meet
their case"
IF there is not, there ought to be-"
argues Gen Moses E. Clapp, in reply
to the county attorney. Brushing
aside all technical points, Gen. Clapp
maintained that it was the inherent
right of every man to demand that any
or every charge brought against him
be presented by properly constituted
grand jury. An indictment found
against q man by a grand jury not
legally constituted was not an indict-
ment that any man was bound to an
swer. The fact that there was no writ
ten law allowing a. citizen to challenge
the panel of an improperly constituted
grand jury, that indicted him after it
was sworn in, did not rob the citizen
of his rights. The law certainly never
contemplated discrimination in favor
Of the man who happened to be bound
ever 10 grand jury not yet sworn in
and against the man who CHANGED to
be indicted after the grand jury had
been sworn in.
G. M. Nelson, who also addressed
the court in behalf of Albert Scheffer
dWelt more especially upon the incom-
potency Of the grand jury to act with
Mr.. Lindquist, as a member thereof
Mr.. Lindquist, it was conceded, was
not member Of the grand jury and
had no right to be present in the grand
jury room at the time of the investi-
cation. The statute prohibited the
presence Of an outsider The indict-
ment was not found by a grand jury
at all, for it was not a grand Jury.
The disqualification of one juror was
the disqualification Of all for the pur-
poses Of this argument and Lindquist's