New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-05-11
A FATTHFTL GRAND JURY.

Tho nroceedings of the Grand Jury in dealing
with the charge against Mr. Molineux give
gratifying assurance that that body under-
stands its functions. Such assurance Is par
ticularly valuable just at present, when the
rights of citizens would otherwise be AT the
mercy of District-Attorney who cannot DE
trusted to respect them. The DistrlctAttorney
and his assistants and the claque that has Deen
for some months engaged in bounding MollneuA
for its own purposes have theory or the
Grand Jury's duty all their own. They are
immeasurably shocked at the impudence OF the
Jurors In examining witnesses other than those
whom the District-Attorney wished them 10
hear The Jurors are denounced rs convert
ing themselves into a trial court. AS matter
of fact. the Grand Jury did exactly what the
law authorizes and commands 1t to do, ana IL
would have been derelict In It's duty II II nad
merely accepted such testimony, prepared to
make n semblance Of a case. as the DISTRICT
Attorney saw fit to put before 1t. while 1t had
reason TO believe that there was set OF facts
that had been concealed The Code Of Grim
inal Procedure says:
The Grand Jury is not bourd to hear evil
dence submitted for the defendant; but IT IS
their duty to weigh all the evidence supmitteu
TO them. and when they have reason 10 nTiiexe
plain away the charge. they should order such
evidence to be produced.
The May Grand Jury exactly obeyed the law
II had reason TO believe that other evidence
explained away the charge against Molineux.
1t was known for instance, that one OF the
experts first brought into the case by the po-
lice disagreed with those produced by the Dis
trict-Attorney and that for that reason his
testimony had been excluded as not tending TO
strengthen the theory Mr.. Gardiner was set
on maintaining. Therefore instead OF being an
mpropriety, the calling Of Mr.. Carvaho was
the duty OF the Grand Jury. Likewise II the
Jurors believed evidence concerning the events
at the Adams fiat was withheld from them
which would show that Mrs. Adams was not
the chance victim of poison intended for Cor
nish. but was herself wllfully murdered, it was
their business to hear such evidence and weigh
II. They we're not bound merely to listen to
a charge against Mollneux and say II state
ment as made up showed probable guilt The
statute saws: 1.-THE Grand Jury has power, and
sit Is their duty. to inquire into all crimes COM
united or triable in the county" 1t Is to In
ouire into the crime" not merely into the
evidence against one person charged with that
crime. Generally, its work concerns only the
one person, 1t is true; but in case such as
the Adams murder where there Is well-found-
ed suspicion that large field for investigation
has been carefully neglected, while every
means. fair and unfair, has been taken to d.
vert attention from that field and fix suspicion
on one man, the Grand Jury is under peculiar
obligations to inquire into the whole crime. 1t
has done so in spite Of the Dstrict-Attorney,
and deserves great credit for Its firmness. II
1t has further material throwing light on the
murderer Of Mrs Adams, II Is to be hoped that
in the public interest 1t will investigate that
material, even II IT be not In line with Mr..
Gardeners preconcepticns.