The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1897-07-07
RgcREANr GRAND JuR1Es.

| and klchiaH0 graoo Jut'es LUG
Charleston grand jury We criticised
for refusing to 6nd true bills against
men charged with violating the dlspen-
sary Law, aud the Richland grand jury
for its failure to 6nd true bills against
CASTOR and Scruggs. who we're charged
! BY the board of control with 'tof6cial
misconduct" !" e. stealing articles
from the cootraband room 10 the State
dispensary 10 reference to the
Charleston cases it was stated that the
Solicitor considered that there was
| ample evidence to convict. Iths never
been denied that there vas sufficient
evidence Of the guilt of the accused to
warrant the finding of true bills. and
We do not doubt there was. 1t such
strong evidence vas laid before the
Charleston grand jury, true bills should
have been found. The grand jury has
no option in such circumstances.
When there is sufficient evidence to
throw a doubt upon the innocence Of
the accused it is the duty of the grand
jury to find true bill. Then, when
brought to trial, the State must estab-
lisb the guilt of the accused beyond a
reasonable doubt. This is the Law as
we understand it, and it vas the disre-
gard of the Law by the Charleston
grand jury that we condemned, for
there vas. at.she very least, "a very strocg
presumption Of the guilt of the per-
sons accused of the illicit sale of liquor.
TIE Ricbland grand jury exhibited
bolder and more contemptuous dis
regard Of the Law, aud Of their sworn
duty under that Law, than the Charleston
grand jury. and was therefore more
deserving Of censure. Consequently We
have 40 apology to make The facts
as repeatedly published 10 the Register
aud other Columbia papers bear Us out
in the contention that the Riohlaad
grand jury failed to perform plain duty.
After full and impartial investigation
it was established that both Castor
and Scruggs appropriated to their owO
use property belonging to the State.
Scruggs admitted his guilt. aad against
both OF the accused there vas more than
sufficient evidence TO give ground for
true bill. The grand jury arrogated
to itself discretionary powers wheo it
refused to 6od true bills, powers that
the law does bes accord grand jurie.; aad
that grand jary was therefore guilty of
a violation of the Law. .and the individual
members we're guilty, either 'willfully or
ignorantly. of violating their oaths The
grand jury had po,rigbt to go behind
tue indictment, the sole duty of the
jury VAS, to decide whether there. was
sufhcieu. evidsnee to create 3 doubt of
che innocence of the accused. and no
one will undertake to deny that there
was strong evidence of guilt.
What the Register has to say
concerning the character of the
o#ense committed BY Scruggs and
Castor lis : the merest nonsense,
aud serves only to throw dust in
the eyes of the unwary. They. took.
appropriated or stole goods owned oy
the State. The choice of terms is i'm
material. aud sugar them as We may
the facts are not altered.
We venture the assertion that
had some minor employee OF
the dispeusary. some poor devil
xi,bou. political influence OF pail,
provided himself with a BOGUS pocus
key and made free with the contents Of
the con,rsband room as did Scruggs, be
would have been summarily jerked up
iedicted and sent TO the chain gang for
larceny in short order. There would
have been no long-wiDded and ez-
peDsive Investigation and no grave
doubts 10 reference TO the precise char
ac,er Of the crime. A spade would
have been called spade in plain terms,
it wcult have been stealing pure aud
simple, and the grand jury would have
found true bill against him for lar