The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1904-10-06
Shall we Abolish the Grand jury.

=
was introduced in the last session Of
the Minnesota legislature providing
for the adjustment Of the grand jury
system and submitting the matter to
the people at the forthcoming cleo
tiOn as a constitutional amendment
The constitution says that no person
shall be held to answer for criminal
oTense unless on the presentment or
Indictment of a grand jury. The pro-
posed amendment reads that no per-
son shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without educ process
of law. - This eliminates entirely the
grand jury system and leaves the
whole matter with the county attorney.
The legislature would enact a law
governing the examinations to be
made by the county attorneys. The
amendment is one of the. most, impor-
tant ever submitted to the people of
the State. The grand jury system was
esta blished by the early Saxons aud
while still in use in England there has
been some agitation many times in
favor of it's repeal. In Scotland there
are no grand juries. The Lord Ad-
vocate who is the chief prosecuting
officer of the country determines
whether person shall be brought to
trial for criminal offense. In all
local districts there are officers who
are known as procurators-fscal to
whom are submitted all criminal mat
tiers in their districts and they hear
the evidence and then certify the same
to the Lord Advocate who determines
whether there shall be any prosecu-
ton on the part Of the state. But in
case the officials Of state government
do not care to prosecute they must if
private parties desire to do so issue
the proper papers to bring the party
charged with guilt to trial.
The argument is made by those who
are in favor Of .abolishing the grand
jury that it is needless and very ex-
pensive piece of legal machinery and
that the results of it's work do not JUS
tify the cost. On the other hand those
who are against abolishing the grand
jury system cite the fact that the fed
eral or United States government has
not yet decided to abolish the grand
jury system, and all parties who are
charged with crime against the gov
eminent are entitled to have their case
examined by the federal grand jury.
The attorney general of the United
States is prosecuting officer of the
government, the same as the district
attorney of the United States is the
prosecuting officer for Uncle Sam in a
certain state or territory, and the
county attorney is the prosecuting
officer of the county. The opponents
Of the proposed amendment say that
if it is right for a state to abolish the
grand jury system it is right for the
general government to abolish the
federal grand jury, and that until the
general government decides to make
such a radical change it would be well
for the states to hold to the grand jury
system. The grand jury is body Of
citizens who are selected regardless of
political belief or creed. They never
know they are to serve until a short
time before the session of the court
and the law throws around them Sc
crecy in their actions and they are en-
tirely removed from all political faint
or influence. It very often happens
that county attorneys are not men
wholly competent to exercise powers
ordinarily delegated to grand jury.
Much Of our politics is run on the
"good fellow" plan and sometimes
men are kept in Office because of be-
ing good fellows or for various rea-
sons, regardless of qualifications or
fitness for Office. The county attor-
neys are elected by the people and
must get out and solicit votes the same
as any ordinary officer and when they
go into office they carry with them
many their likes and dislikes as re-
CARDS individuals. They are human
and to say that their judgment in a
case would be as good as that of the
members of a grand jury would be to
make an extravagant statement.
Grand juries very often act on the ad-
wise of the county attorney, but there
has been such case as grand jury
in Minnesota going before the district
judge and demanding to know why
the county attorney had not prose-
cuted in a case where the grand jury
had returned a true bill or an indict-
ment. A case came up not long since
where the representative of certain
railroad desired to have the county
attorney cause the arrest of some
parties who it was claimed by the
railroad representative had destroyed
railroad property, but the county at
torney refused to have anything to do