The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-07-07

people to go unwhipped of justice, it Is a fearful thing that we are responsible | for. Will you like mer discharge your | duty to these people who are dependent {! for their protection upon us, or will I you allow the lawless to maltreat them l and shed their blood and act towards I them in some cases most inhumanely and deny them the protection of the
 laws If you do. you degrade our peo- | ples and our institutions. It Is un- | worthy of a noble race, and we should convict the perpetrators without any | reference to anything in our past his- | tory. Take hold of this, thing and guard their rights and protect their | lives as we do our own.
 These are the objects seek to attain by offering this measure so that after giving the grand jury an opportunity | to find an indictment soon after the crime is committed and if they do not at the first session act, the judge or
 court may order the prosecution insti- tuted. Not that he must but that he | may. That shifts the responsibility to him and if he is what he ought to be, if he Is a true judge. and is satisfied | that a crime against nature has been committed. any felony. which should | by all means be investigated, he will order it. Sometimes felonies don't | require such action as that and if the | judge is satisfied that public good and | common justice don't require 1t he will not take the responsibility of making | the order: but presuming he is what he ought to be. whatever a judge should be. can we not risk him and l let him say whether proceedings shall be had against the suspected party by information filed. It seems to me that the case is exceptional because of practices that have been inaugurated
 to dodge responsibility and because of the course that has been pursued which has diverted grand juries from their
 noble purposes and converted them by
 means of bribery into a shield to pro- tect the guilty.
 MT. Pitts-will not the adoption of your amendment amount to the aboli tion of the grand jury?
 MT. 'Oates-I think not. But will say furthermore, if the grand juries cannot be relied on to indict the crimes to which I have alluded, they ought to be abolished.
 MT. Pitts-will it not put the prose- cution within the hands of the fami-
 lies and friends of those injured?
 MT. Oates-Not necessarily. It will
 be in the hands of the officers of the law.
 EfttS-ouppOSe the crime or DurE- lary has been committed and the grand jury ignores 1t, won't this put it in the power of those back of the prose- cution to proceed against a suspected person?
 Mir. Oates-Not at all. They would have to deal with the judge. and if the judge don't see proper to order 1t, they cannot proceed.
 Mr. Sanford-How do you propose that the information shall be filed. at the request of the solicitor?
 MT. Oates-On the order of the court and not in the absence of such order.
 MT. Pitts-On what information would the judge act?
 MT. Oates--You would have to ask the judge.
 MT. Pitts-How would it be brought to the knowledge of the judge?
 MT. oates-These things are general ly known.
 MT. Pitts-But would he proceed on his own motion?
 MT. Oates-If he is satisfied felony has been committed he would order an investigation.
 lature have the power to regulate all that?
 Mir Oates-Yes.
 Mir Reese-Where the conditions in 8 locality are such as to protect Q man from indictment by the grand Jury, will not the anne influence protect him from conviction by a petit jury? Is not there a great deal more trouble about petit juries turning men loose than about the failure of grand turies to indict and would you not have to abolish petit juries in the classifica- tions you speak of to get justice?
 MF 0afaq-Forfttna faIx vx,a hax,o reached that stage of degradation yet and trust to God we never shall.
 MT. Bulger-If understand the amendment offered by my friend from Montgomery and its influence. 1t would be very unwise to put 1t in the fun damental law. It is clearly a depart ure from a time honored practice and custom under our theory of govern ment that has proved so satisfactory for many, many years. The gentle man in support of his position cites ex- captions to the general rule. He cites cases in which the grand juries have not indicted men who in his judgment ought to have been indicted. It Is al- ways unsafe to bade rule of action on exceptions to the general rule. Is the Judge is a better man than the grand juries are? If so, why so. The grand Jurors under our system are selected from the body of the county on &C., count of their integrity. intelligence and high standing among their fellows. A Judge is selected from a. larger body on the same ground and for the same reasons Gentlemen have failed to tell this Convention why a Judge is safer to indict a man than a grand jury Is. In the one case the matter in contro- versy is left to eighteen men to judge, in the other to only one. and I main tain it is eighteen times as safe in the hands of the grand jury as it is in the hands of the Judge.
 Now, MT. President, while there are exceptions and cases in which men should have been indicted when they | actually were not the exceptions to | which the gentleman refers never go | out of date and if the first grand jury | in session after the crime fails to do | it's duty because of bribery or other | cause as the gentleman seems to in- | timate. we only have to wait six | months under our practice to have an- other grand jury. l believe no citizen of | Alabama ought to be put upon a final | trial unless a grand jury of the com munity in which the crime Is com | mitted says by an indictment that he | ought to be put upon trial before a | court and d traverse jury. l am un- | willing to depart from the time hopored | practice that has proven healthy not | only to our system of government but | to all civilized governments that a man should first he indicted before he is put on trial.
 MT. Jenkins-One of the prime prin-