The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1903-03-18
Laybourn Saves His Bill for
Relegation of Grand Jury
System After Senate Pre-
pared Measure for Burial
Opposition Claims to Be
Confident of Ultimate Sue
cess.

The Laybourn grand jury BILL rec
commended for indefinite postpOnement
by the senate judiciary committed was
again held from the graveyard yester-
day afternoon by the insistence of tho
senator from st. Louis, and will now
go on the calendar with a favorable
recommendation.
Senator Laybourn's refusal to ac-
knowledge defeat alone won a new
lease of life for the bill designed to do
away with the grand jury system in
certain cases. The measure was fought
by the leaders of the judiciary COM
mittee, and Senator Schaller's motion
to recommend the bill for indefinite
postpOnement made while the senate
was sitting as a committee of the whole
was carried by a vote of % to 18.
Declines to Accept Defeat.
Senator Laybourn looked defeated,
but he had his measure excepted from
the report of the committee, and de-
manded call of the senate before al
lowing the consideration of his motion
to recommend the bill for passage With
the members in their seats he demand
ed roll call, and the motion to rec
ommend faVOrably was carried, % to
q.
The bill will now go on the calendar
and should come up for final passage
L hQl nS SendlOIS OppOSlIlB the
measure expressed themselves satisfied
with the vote on the motion favorably
to recommend, for they insist that the
senator from st. Louis mustered his
full strength yesterday and that the
bill will be killed when reached on the
calendar.
Senators Wilson and Morgan sup
ported Senator Laybourn In his fight
for the measure and Senators Schaller
SomerVille and Wood defended the
grand jury system Senator Thompson
compromised by declaring that the bill
called for a constitutional amendment
and should be sent before the people.
Step in Right Direction.
Senator Laybourn opened the de-
bate by explaining that his bill was not
designed to do away with the grand
jury system, though 1t permitted cOun-
ty attorneys to file information against
accused with the court in many cases.
He called attention to the fact that a
number of states had practically abol-
iShed the grand jury.
Senator Schaller insisted that the
fact that number of other states had
relegated the grand jury to the back
ground was no reason for Minnesota
changing its system.
There is an old story" said the SEN
ator from Dakota, about fox who
had his tail cut off by a trap. He
called a convention of foxes and in
formed them that the latest style de-
manded the cutting off of tails. He
asked them to cut off their tails, but
being foxes, they could not hear him."
The grand jury means deliberation,"
continued Mr.. Schaller, "and delibera-
ton aids justice. The grand jury is
one of the safeguards against malicious
persecution. A county attorney Is but
human and IUhan he &c
grand jury steps in between him and
the persons annoying him. 1t is bet
ter to retain the system even if it is
cumbersome"
Opportunities for conspiring.
Senator Wilson expressed himself as
willing to place the reputation of the
state in the hands of the prosecuting
attorneys rather than with the grand
jury. He maintained that grand jur-
les are made up of inexperienced men.
He insisted that 1t was far more easy
to influence grand juries, as they work
In secret. Men, he declared, would ap-
pear before grand juries and conspire
against other men because they could
do so without fear of discovery, and
these same men would not dare to
come out in open court with their same
tales.
The senator from Hennepin quoted
from the attorney generals report to
show that large percentage of in
dictments returned by grand juries had
been nolled by county attorneys and
read from law magazines to prove that
the legal minds of the world favored
a change.
Senator Schaller answered these ar
guments. He denied that indictments
could be easily secured from a grand
jury, and scoffed at the idea of spite
indictments. He insisted that the
county attorney now binds man over
to the grand jury, and that this same
county attorney with the grand jury
abolished would surely hold a prisoner
for trial in court. He would do
this" said the senator, "on evidence in
sufficient in many cases, while with a
grand jury the charge against the
prisoner would be wiped out without a
trial in court"