The Pacific commercial advertiser., 1900-10-19

as GOOD protection to the life and liberty Of the citizen
by grand jury but is whether or not the ftn
amendment requires guarantees to the citizen 'nae m
not placed Infamous crime without an lndlc
ment by grand jury.
Mr. Justice Gray said "But the crime OF which the pet
toner was accused was an cme within the meaning
of the Fifth amendment Of the constitution no court OF the
United States had jurisdiction try punish him. except upon
preentment Indictment by grand jury Er pdrte "ison
11O U. S. 1922
The why person accused cannot be tired OF
shed in any "Court the United States and may be in state
court that the Federal Bill of Rights first ten amendments
the constitution do apply to the people OF the states IN
making constitutions to the state legislatures IN
egslatng for the But well settled that Congress In
cgang the bound by these amendments 1t
be seriously conended that Congress intended by the
Joint Resolution of annexato did it fact authorize the
the Hawaiian Islands do what the courts OF no other
territory of the United States could do After annexation the
of the Hawaiian Islands exercised all their and
authority under the Joint Resolution and by direction OF the
President of the United States and may observe in this
necon that the judges the required and did In
fact take oath support constitution of the United States
Mr. Justice Gray further said in last cited Tha
be held to without Indictment by
grand jury for any for which Infamous punishment
may be imposed by the The question Is whether the
for which the authorizes the award
infamous punishment whether the punishment ultimate
y awarded Infamous When the accused is danger
of being subjected Infamous punishment convicted he
has the right insist that he shall be put trial. except
upon the accusation of grand jury" "But the
sttution protecting every from being prosecuted without
the intervention of grand jury for any crime which subject
by law infamous punishment declaration of Congress
needed to secure competent defeat the constitutional
safeguard" Er parte Wilson, 10 Q. S p 1926
Mr. Justice Hanlan in Thompson Utah, 10 q. S. 346,
says "Tha the provisions of the constitution of the United
States relating the right of trial by jury in
law apply States longer
open question"
Citing Webster Reid, II How. 437, 460 Am Pub. Co.
Fisher, 1ee u S. 4e4, 46S; Springuie Thomas u s.
7O-7.
In the last named claimed that the territorial
legislature OF Utah empowered by the Organic Act of the
territory Of Sept 9h 1885, u S. St. It. 453 81 por g. to
provide that unanmiy of action the part of civil
cases was not necessary to valid verdict That ad n
opinion the Seventh Amendment secured unanm find
ing verdict essential feature of trial by jury
law and the Act of Congress could mpart the power
change the constitutional rule could treated
tempting do 1t equally beyond question that pro-
visions OF the national constitution relating trial by jury for
and to criminal prosecutions apply the territories Of
the United States ITO U. S. pp 346 347
Assuming that the provisions of the constitution relating
trials for crimes and to criminal prosecutions apply the terri
torres of the United Sates the inquiry whether the jury
referred to in the original constitution and the Sixth amendment
is Jury constituted as it law of twelve persons
neither less. Haes P. c. 1e1 i Chys Cr Law
5O5 This question be answered in the Affirmative
Thompson q. Utah. ITO u S. p. $40.
1t will be remembered that Thompson placed upon trial.
after the admission of Utah for felony, committed
when Utah territory and under the constitution
eight composed lawful trial jury and suca jury tried
and found Thompson guilty In the opinion last cited the
further says: Was then competent for the of Utah.
upon itsadmon the Union do respect Thompson
crime what the United States could have done while Utah
territory namely provide for his trial by jury of eight
We of opinion that the did acquire upon
Its admission into the Union the power provide respect
feonies committed within its limits while territory that
they should be tried otherwise than by jury such provided
by the constitution of the United States When Thompson
crime committed his constitutional right demand
that his liberty should not be taken from him Joint
action OF the and the verdict of jury
To hold that could deprive him of liberty by
the action of eight Jurors would recog
nze the of the state only do what United
IN respect Ihompsons crime could any me have done
by legislation but to take from the accused substantial right
belonging to him when the oense was committed" THOMPSON
{. Utah, 10 U. S. pp 35O1
"It thata all than of