The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1900-04-24

certain offences. are examples OF his
tory repeating itself. We went through
| the same matters in Kings county In
| 1898. Indeed. the pretense that the dis
| trict attorney has the right TO be con-
stantly present I'm the grand jury room
J. originated here. The county judge here
instructed the grand jury that the dis
trlct attorney had that right. and that
they must acquiesce I'm II.
1.-The question arose in the investiga-
tion OF the so-called Columbian frauds.
The grand jury summoned a member
OF the Kings county bar before ii 10
give testimony. When he was called
in they requested the assistant district
attorney to withdraw. He refused TO
do so. They then filed into court and
asked whether they had not the right
TO have him withdraw. The county
judge gave them a round scolding. and
told them the district attorney, or his
asslstana had a right TO be present
constantly before them except while
they We're expressing their opinion or
taking vote They returned much
vinced, for their foreman asked the law
yer who was the witness what he
thought of II.
THE lawyer answered that since he
was asked he would say right out that
the county judge had deliberately and
Intentionally. ard for purpose. falsi-
fed the law 10 them; that the district
Il ,iosht hn
without their consent. and that both
district attorney and the county judge
knew il, but were deliberately deceiv-
ing them. He then said that since he
was at II he would also inform them
that the advice which the district at
torney and the county judge had also
given them previously that they could
not indict public officials for official
misdemeanors but only For offences OF
the grade OF felony, was also wilful
and intentional deception Of tnem, with
out any foundation whatever, ana
meant only TO shield certain public Of
ficials. The district attorney had pre-
viously given them this extraordinary
official adw and upon their going
to the county Judge he had advised
them In the same way.
1.-The grand jury thereafter brought
in a presentment 10 the court TO the ef
feet tirat they found that the mayor
and other public officials were, guilty
OF frauds in the Columbian expenses.
and that they were prevented from in
dieting therefore only by such advice
TO them that they could not indict pub
hc officials for official offences of a less
grade than felony whereas the Of
fences committed were. only defined by
law as misdemeanors. The mayor had
a motion made before the county judge
TO publish the grand jury's minutes.
The county judge hesitated. The state
ment OF the lawyer witness concern
ing him and the district attorney had
been taken down i'm full and was part
OF such minutes. II that was to be
published. the county judge would
have TO vindicate himself o. be con-
In all probability removed from his cf-
fee. He therefore privately struck
such statement from the minutes and
then ~rublished them"
1t almost makes ones blood boil to
read OF such judicial action as that;
but that grand jury evidently did not
know what could be done under such
conditions. The remedy. however. was
plain and clear. That jury should have
knocked the judge from his seat by go
ing instantly before the court of ap-
peals.