The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1901-12-10

van case, so that we might present the
same to the court, and then have the
court, with that testimony before it, in
struct US as to our duty. The Prosecutor,
at first, rather promises us this copy:
but afterwards refused it, although so
far as he knew, our purpose in asking
for 1t was to Gamble US to more accur-
ately and thoroughly understand the con-
tents and character of that testimony.
Repeating the criticisms of the Court.
some Of the press has assailed us for not
finding a bill in the case, and says that
the man Sullivan has kept a notorious
gambling place in the one location for
many years. and that on several occasions
his place has been raided and evidence Sc
cured, and that each time there has been
Grand Jury ready to exert its influence
to shield him from the law, and accuses
the Grand Jury OF being Influenced b.
political considerations in behalf of said
Sullivan. We repudiate this assault vito
scorn. 1T is as false as it is foolish.
This man Sullivan is an absolute stranger
to nearly everyone Of us. We don't know
his politics, and don't care what they are.
Several of us. before hearing the evil
dence in his case, from what we had read
that we should vote to indict him, but
when the testimony was given in his
case before US, we found that there was
no evidence in it against him, and we
could not, as men, indict him.
Under the law. we are not at liberty to
publish that testimony. We were denied
a copy of it by the Prosecutor. mad even
if we had a copy Of it, we do not feel
that we would have a right to make it
public. But it appears that the Prosecu-
tor has a right to make this testimony
public. And the press has a right to
make this testimony public. And as the
only way in which it is possipls for the
public to Judge of our conduct IN relation
to this matter Is to present the testimony
to them, we accordingly challenge all per-
sons having possession of the testimony
which was given in the said Sullivan case
before US, and who have a right to pub
lfsh it, so that the public may judge
whether there is any politics in the case
or not or what is in the case, or whether
we were justified, or deserved to be criLi-
cised in the course we pursued in ths
premises. Generalities will not do. Let
the public have the facts. Let the light of
publicity and truth be turned upon this
case, and then after the testimony is pub
licly before. US, let Us judge, aid let those
who wish to argue upon the same do so.
Sufficeth to say here, which is all that we
can say, that we have done our GLty, that
We were unanimous in the discharge OF
that duty; that the twenty-three MEM
bers of two Grand Juries before us were
also unanimous in refusing to find an in
dictment against the same man on the
same charge, and, so far as we know, on
the same or very similar testimony; that
mary members of all three panels of the
Grand Jury were members of the Re
publican party, while their fellows were
| members of the Democratic party; that
most of the members of said three Grand
Juries stand we'll in this county. as well
as the Prosecutor, and, perhaps. as well
as the Judges, and are possessed of as
equally as high sense of honor and just
as steadfastly devoted to the discharge OF
public duty And we submit to the con-
sideration of the citizens of this county
the unanimous judgment of those thres
Grand Juries, of twenty-three members
each Democratic and Republican gentle
men alike, on the question lnvolved.> a.
against the Judgment or the opinion that
has been expressed to the contrary.