The San Francisco call., 1898-01-18
WOULD ABOLISH
 GRAND JURIES San Bernardino Judqes Opposed to the
 System. Say Its Field Could Be COv- cred by MOdernized Court
 Methods. Expense of Maintaining It Is Need less and the Benefits Seldom Great.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

SAN BERNARDINO. Jan. IT, Judges Oster and Campbell of the Su- perior Court in delivering a charge to the Grand Jury this morning gave the present Grand Jury system some se- were blows. The last Grand Jury in this county was in session twelve days, cost S1700 and returned only one indict- ment. The charge was an argument against the Grand Jury and the system. Extracts from it follow:
 We believe the sentiment to be yery general in this State that the present Grand Jury system has outlived its use fulness and that its continuance is only a needless burden on the taxpayers of the commonwealth. No doubt it has in the past performed valuable functions in the administration of the criminal law, but this consideration appeals rather to the antiquarian and the student of political history than to the property-owners seeking relief from heavy taxation. These same functions can now be performed with less expense, greater efficiency and more in accordance with the spirit of our institutions by the District Attorney. aided by the examining magistrate and the machinery of modernized criminal jurisprudence. as already established.
 Secrecy and divided responsibility are the cardinal characteristics of the Grand Jury system, as contra-distinguished from the modern mode of instituting criminal proceedings, and, while there may possibly arise times in which the or dtnary channels through which justice flows become corrupted or powerful com binations of criminals are to be ferreted ont, and when, therefore, this secrecy and divided responsibility may give the Grand Jury system an advantage over the simpler and more public mode of inSututing criminal proceedings this pos sibility perhaps constitutes an argument for the retention of the Grand Jury as an agency of the court, to be invoked by 1t only when in its opinion one of the ex- traordinary conditions suggested may require, but It IS no argument for the continuance of the present law necessi- tating the calling of a Grand Jury every year. On the contrary, and ordinarily this secrecy and divided responsibilitv are among the most objectionable feat ures of the Grand Jury system, and make 1t possible Tor the coward to make a covert assault on the character of an honest and upright citizen, at the same time depriving him of the usual means of redress.
 of the present scheme that no other body except the Grand Jury possesses the necessary inquisitoriai power over the officers of the county to Investigate their accounts and correct abuses but in an swer to such an argument 1t may be said that like power, including by necessary lnplcdIon CnS authority 10 employ eX- perts, is already vested in the Board of Supervisors, and it is expressly made part of their duty at least once year to examine and audit the accounts of all officers having the care, collection or dis bursement of county moneys.
 However, we believe it to be an easy matter to suggest a better mode of au- diting the county books than by experts to be appointed by either of these bodies. Too often it has happened in this county that among the so-called experts em- ployed by Grand JurieS were persons of such limited experience and knowledge as to subject their reports and recommenda- tions, when adopted and promulgated through the Grand Jury to contempt and ridicule, thereby visiting on the tTrand Jury itself odium which should have been al tta ched to the eXpert himself