The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1899-06-20

cluded q largo number OF specimens OF hand
selected a sufiicient humber TO furnish basis
for comparison with tbs writing on the poison
package and the Barnet and Cornish letters.
the eIamination Of witnesses by Mr.. Osborne
and may have escaped his attention. One OF
Jurors and pointed out to each one what he
regarded as Simiarities between the hand
writing This export handei the sG msmbers Of
tthhe hrand Jury q microscope. and through it
Ihsy d eramined The writings in question under
views by the Grand Jurors as to handWrtings.
Wnicn was by 10 means limited to the ten
Hiin NJ, OF which he speaks in his affidavit.
IL i. . .ne decision OF the Grand Jury was p!ompt-
It was only because, so far as any opinion was
expressed stls no one was convinced that the ad-
Of the Barnet and Cornish letters was the WORK
OF Molineux The conclusions Of the Grand
Hfy n9 On rhIs subject are found in their refusal
a, Il have not, and never have had. any rela-
tons with the accused or wi h any Of his fam
charge OF my duty under oath as u Grand
' ,hr; MOTTO refrain from presenting any man
neuI. the father Of the accused, Is simply one
OF tho numerous gentlemen associated with
stan tsy Of aS'i: h WITH whom the
sions q the, May Grand Jury with any one
tive or friend, and so far AS know am IN
formed or believe no attempt was made by
any one to influence the Grand Jury in favor
OF the accused.
~ asked no question Of any witness for the
purpose OF generating Molineux. Each and
Il IN. was asked simply and solely. for the pur
pose OF eIitItnE the whole truth for the infor
never stated at any time or to any ore
t thS the Grand Jury had determined not 70
It had been proven that Cornish had not COM
mTitted the crime; and no such determine
Ts' S%ed BY yha the Gsnd Hy Gran,
Jury for instruction from the court was n9ta
desire desire to svold passing upon the case Of Mol.
the invsatiRaton OF the charge against him
matter was ELECTED tending 70 implicate 9TH
the line Of Investigation so indicated and to
direct the calling OF witnesses for that pur-
The admission to the records Of the court
Of an attack upon the May Grand Jury makes
TINS ailidavlt necessary; but in submitting it
tests against the action calling for this state.
ment as destructive OF tho MISUNDERSTANDING
the Grand Inquest of the county. II the
Grand Graz. Jury Is to be put upon its defence BY
opinion. its Independence Is gone and our sys-
tom OF eriminal lurisprudence is at once as
c.n can Gl r at ss
Will OF the Government or OF the public pros
I'm the Manual furnished to the Grand Jury
Tor their guidance. the opinions OF Gritty,
blackstone and Lord Coke are cited to give
Injustice more likely to be done than in the
andlnS 81 '9ds s ut +, nsqGsnt proo
yet oftentimes most Oppressive in its cosse.
The determln alton OF the May Gran Jury
was the result OF conclusions following a care
iul examination Of all the.witnesses called for
the people.
"sTTs SEa to before me this 18th day OF June.
j. LANopoN WAID. Notary Public"
1t is unnecessary to pass on the merits OF
this controversy" said Justice FuIsman. and
q the criticism made OF the Grand Jury.
to nsre br Is No aT Theh 81 tS the
with crime before submitting the case to tho
Sr{ TO easa GR Ss to be
stance even when the accused is under arrest
II Is also quite mistake to SUPPOSE that
room i' secret 1t cannot be from the very
nature Of things secret. When the members
Of an indictment there can be no person pres
ent. not even the District Attorney. But in
The examination OF witnesses whatever occurs
between the witness and the examining per
son cannot in tho nature OF things be secret
A witness may 60 out and disclose the whole
>. There Is no~law which requires secrecy.
1t would be Impossible that secrecy could be
an indictment the case may be sent to another
Grand Jury. Tho statute says that it may DO
ma5 d 2 drH Wa! S eour a Said h
case ia before the Court OF General Sessions.
What case, There 10 no case whatever in tho
the, purpose OF this motion. Legally. Judi
cially. there is no case In existence: There is
no indictment because the only indictment
found Is dismissed. Any court having author
ity may direct rssubmission TO the Grand Jury.
am convinced-not because | consider. the
statement that any member OF the Grand Jury
misconducted himself; not because OF the
foreman being said to have possessed himself
Of written Information on tho outside-that,this
case should be rssubmitted The presump-
ton OF the law is that Molineux is Innocent
The presum ption Of fac. must be that he IL
innocent. But / think the cause OF justice
will be better subserl ed. that the interests Of
the accused will be better subserved If this
case is submitted to another, Grand Jury. II
that Grand Jury fails to indi't the District
Attorney will not-at least he ought not-and
| am satisfied that no Judge will permit him
to submit the case to another Grand Jury. II
he is indicted and tried and is guilty. he should
be convicted. II he Is innocent. have sum
cient faith in the integrity OF the courts to say
that he viii be acquitted. This case may be
resubmitted to the present or the next Grand
Jury. the presentment to BEGIN not later than
July and tc end not later than July IA"