The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-08-13


concerned, he may be we'll content to rest
upon his vindlcntion, which Is completes.
But MI. Maokcy cannot lot the matte
rest where It Isl I1ofmust tell upon whose
authority these plandcro,,s statements CT tents
were made, and Why he circulated them
Such a frank statement Is due to him
self to the other. candidate, and to t 7
public. t5 Il
That Suppressed Grand Jury
Report. i
Our afternoon con tcn,porary seems TO
have gotten some .nkllng in regard to the
suppressed report Of tho minority Of ne
grand jury. Il. Some discussion has been
going OH as to, the right of$thcsc three
gentlemen b to make the i report when
they presented to Judge Witt. we can-
not see how thoro can be room for ques-
ton upon the subject. Let us assume
that what tile News Leader, stated was
the substance of their report Is correct.
What would itsamount$to
Their report was equivalent to inform
ing the court that9in the course Of the
blythe grand Jury 53f ac rs
had come tofthc knowIe ledge Of he Jurors
which made lit tis3duty Of the court to
remove ttho& present electoral board and
appoint another. Now why should these
three gentlemen be debnrred from ths I
right to do this any more than, any other
three citizens could be debarred VI from
the right to do9it2SThe diffcrance In the
two cases is this fhnd only this, Any
three citizens might go to Judge Witt
and Inform himftof facts within heir
know ledge that would have made ! t. his
duty to remove the electoral board Il
that vera done no would administer al
oath to them and they would make their
statement to him under the penalties OF
perjury, but three grand jurors may
communicate tho same information 4tol
him under the responsibility and sanction
or their position as grand jurors without
any affidavit. There Is the difference
and the whole difference between the tn
two cases. AS I my three citizens might
we'll 90 before Judge witt and give this.
information under their OATH the three
grand Jurors, having allN&the rights F %
citizens. may give n. sbutin their casa
! no oath is grequircd,s their oath as grand
Jurors being he;sanction5 for their act 7.e'' sg
| Az erroneous idea has &got p into the
public mind about the matter Of secrecy
III the grand jury. proceedings. Whilst
1.-THE g.,and jury is :akinE estimony sand
4 cliberatin, tEeresmust be no publliiSc4at-
ton or anything pertaining TO their pro
cecdlngs, because the whole ends OF JUS
tlce may ho defeated. # such n5thing
4 were DONE the thieves and murdereers
would get information ofSwhat Is in prog
i ress, and they may send witnesses before
A The grand jury, which will prevent the
4 grand jury finding indictments against
4 them, or may escape, but when the
grand jurys deliberations are over ana
q they are discharged, the principle mas
4 no application. The case Is ended. me
4 grand jury Is dead. It Is absolutely
4 essential that there should have been
n secrecy while the grand jury was per-
Z forming its functions. There IS no sre'aatt-
n or reason that there should be secrecy
Il thereafter than there Is IN respect y
any other matter, One element OF inc
Il secrecy requirement. which exists N many
4 other places does not exist In virginia
4 In many other places the oath or w
grand jury binds them to secrecy uhu !
is not very easy TO say Whoh me op''su
ii lion Of that oath terminates, but M
oath for the grand jury prescribed DS
the Virginia statute makes no llle1lt'o o =
secrecy juror is not sworn 70 seoie''
!, In Virginia. This matter has been pelo''
!, the Virginia Court OF Appeals, ana " ma
lad occasion TO declare the principles
Q which govern the subject. INC case ~
: ferred 10 is Little against the Common
4 wealth, 25 Grattan. 92l, In that case
n witness appeared against the accused ~"
q gave 4 certain version OF the alt'lll
Another witness WAS called to contraalc
1 his statement by showing that the ycrslo
that he gave Of The affair 70 INC sra''
: Jury was entraly different me po''
), was made that this witness coulu ho
disclose wha, had taken place IN W
j grand jury room. because us pfoc ''a.''
were secret The Court or APpeAis
. Virginia held that when the purposes
. Justice required that the proceeo'Ass y
!, fore u dead jury should be brought o.
they might be brought out, ana the "
ness was allowed TO tell what had pe4
said before the grand jury y mas pcs
our purpose to make two poinls'
7 FIrs,-Thut the report should nave pes
- received as information that llIs cou
should accept from anyone "nc'n
grand juror or not
Second That there Is great dea4
~, misconception about the sseteey 'uc
la The secrecy is to project the proeeedin
OF the grand Jury whilst II is In its dell