The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-08-06
Shall the Grand Jury Go?

Do we want to "cut OUT the grand
jury? This is a live question: and
one that every voter must consider,
for at the November election a con-
stitutional amendment will be submit
ted to popular vote, with that end in
view.
The amendment proposes to strike
out this language from the bill of
I rights" Of our state constitutions:
No person shall be held to answer for
criminal offense unless on the present.
ment or Indictment of grand jury, except
In cases of impeachment or in cases cog
n1zable by justices Of the peace, or aris-
ing In the army or navy, or in the militia
when In actual service in time Of war or
public danger
In place of the excluded language
the amendment submitted substitutes
the following:
| No person shall be held to answer for a
law.
The effect Of this is plain. It leaves
the process Of law to be defined by
the legislature, without restriction. If
the amendment is carried, the next
legislature may abolish the grand
Jury. This is the declared Intention
of those who fought so hard to get
the amendment submitted.
AS a substitute for indictment by
grand jury, the friends Of this reform
propose the method used in Michi-
gan and some other states. There an
accused person is arraigned on pre-
sentiment of the county attorney.
Grand juries are summoned only in
special emergencies, such as the mu-
nicipal scandals in this city, or the
L campaign against corruption in ST.
Louis.
1t is urged that the more modern
| method has proved a great success in
, Michigan, where the machinery OF
justice works more smoothly and ex-
peditiously. They now regard the
grand jury system as old Fashioned
slow and cumbersome. Under the ole
system there were always leaks
from the grand jury room, permitting
t persons to escape before indictment
With the matter in the hands of one
man, this is impossible.
2 1t is a new proposition for Mime
: sofa. The people Of this state are no
! familiar with it's merits, and it il
9 hardly to be expected that the amend
e ment will go thru this fall. Sena
t tor Laybourn's bill submitting thu
Y amendment was a novel idea to mos
: of the Legislature when it was intro
i duced. Conservative feeling blocked
: it's way for a long time, and once i
was supposed to be buried beyond re
loa11 If was hrn1 oh 10
e finally passed by sheer persistence
: Outside the legislature the subject ha
y hardly been discussed and can hardl
: hope to command a majority of al
Z, the votes cast at the general election
: 1t is hard enough to get sufficien
|, votes for a question that has Sc
a the state afire, like the per cen
e gross earnings or the taxation amend
: ment, both of which failed to get tn
}, required majority at the last election
In view of those failures, the mos
f sanguine supporter Of the anti-gran
Y jury amendment will hardly predic
IS it's success this fall.
S The grand jury has been so lon
# regarded as one of the bulwarks o
Is our liberties, that people will be slo1
e to let it go unless convinced of the ad
e vantages to be gained. They recog
: nize the faults of the grand jury, blu
e will question whether the collectiv
y Judgment of twenty men will not brin
n better results than the untrammele
is action of one man, holding politica
> office, and dependent on his constitu
Is ents for tenure of office. In reply t
y this, opponents of the grand jur
n system will say that in nearly all case