The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-07-19
GRAND JURY
E
POWERS
fcontinued from First page.l

Recently, Mr.. Knight obtained a copy
of an essay read before the faculty of
the Law Academy of Philadelphia on
the subject, and which was awarded
the Peter Stephens Duponceau prize,
which fully supports his opinion that
the presentment was properly laid, I'M
read, on the table.
Mr.. Knight goes much further than
this. He says that in preparing the
presentment the Grand Jury acted en-
tirely without authority, and that it
has no more power to promulgate such
a document h has a private person.
"Such a document" said Mr.. Knight,
twas once read to the presiding judge
by the clerk of a grand jury, and SUISSE
uuentlv that clerk was forced to pay
damages for libel. This case is cited
by George ]. Edwards. jr., author of
the essay / have alluded to. He shows
In his citation that the clerk carried
the case to the highest court, but that
he lost in every tribunal.
mr.. Edwards says in his essay;
Presentments Outside Duty.
When the grand jurors have completed
ali the duties which will devolve upon them
it is now customary for them TO prepare a
written report of their work. which IS
signed bv their foreman and handed TO the
court erier with the indictments. In this
report they frequently take occasion 10
discuss various matters affecting the pun
lie welfare, c~ritlcise public officials, act as
lcensors of the morals of the community,
and make recommendations when 1t is I'M
practicable and impossible to carry INTO
effect.
That they are acting outside OF their
duties ns grand jurors In milking such
prescntments will hardly be donDtea'
As the official accuser for the govern
ment. their duty Is to present persons.
not things. That this prnctisc should
be continued upon the ground thar ~
cnIIs to the public eye abuses In the
administration OF government or the
existence of vice in the community ~
a proposition which rests upon NO ioSi-
cnl basis. IL they have any evidence
of the things which they thus set
forth. II IL their duty to the public
and TO themselves under ,heir presSn'
of such offenses. If they have no per
SonaI knowledge of the facts. they are
to law. If they know the things which
they present, they should present In
dividunis; II they do not know. the!
broad accusations. which. while the!
cannot be sustained. g~ricyOusly iDjur'
those to whom they indirectly apply.
81 Practise Condemned.
This practise received severe condemn
of Hon. Daniel Davis, then Attorney-Gen
eral FOR the State of Massachusetts, who
says: ''The practise. not uncommon II
some parts of the United States. of bring
ing forward, in the form of ~presentments
what are dcnominated public grievances,
relative to the political or moral state of
the country, Is altogether extra-othcia1
and may be and has been adopted and
pursued fer purposes foreign to, and in
consistent with. the nature Of the insti-
tuition; and perhaps II il not too much 40
used and perverted 10 party purposes'
and with mn intention 10 produce an ef-
feet upon public measures and the public
mind. Whenever this shall be the case
1t is TO be considered in the same light
as any other usurpation or abuse OF the
judicial authority. 1t may, with the
saBsr B ProPTbfet 6f; the be indIcini bower Sy any By
the court. or the traverse jury, as well
as the grand jury
Clerk Held for Libel.
In the case of Rector w. Smith, the
grand jury made a written report 10 the
court wherein libelIous statements were
made relating to the conduct Of q person
then in public office. An action for libel
was begun against the clerk of the grand
Jury who had brought the report INTO court
and there read it. An answer was. filed
by the defendant who claimed the report
was a privileged communication to which
answer the plaintiff demurred but the de-
murrer was overruled bv the lower court.
On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the
judgment and expressly ruled that the re-
port was not a privileged communication
- -. NV 'f' - 'H' NF'N'
Baldwin, j.. says:
1.-THE grand jury have no power. nor Is
1t their privilege or duty to present any
person for a criminal offense except by
Indictment. If the misconduct of an OH
Ger does not amount to a crime, and is net
Of such magnitude as will justify the jury
in finding an Indictment. their powers over
the offense complained Of, are at an end,
. Z A report by a grand jury, presents
nothing upon which the court eau act,
unless it is in reference TO the condition
lOf the nrignp The pOIrf rnp taIyR no
jurisdiction over the complaint charged
by such report. Nor can a person thus
presented have an opportunity to show
himself innocent Of the matters complained
of. With this view of the question we
conclude that the report presented by tho
defendant as 2 Juror, was not a privileged
this in bar Of plaintiffs right to recover
Subject to Attack.
When the grand jury IL, their present
ment thus go beyond their awful author
lily. whether they refer to persons by
name, title. or by innuendo, or TO any par
ticular matter or thing. 1t becomes q seri-
Gus question Vhether or not their present
ment should be permitted to stand Clear
ly In such instance they haVc exceeded
their authority, and in such event their
presentment rests upon no legal founda-
lion. There would consequently seem to
be no valid reason why q motion to quash
or dismiss the presentment. or strike IT,.
or the objectionable part thereof, from the
files should not be made. If the grand
lNIOEN Hdf tAeFfttu tDftT NutnOFbIN III
making such p-resentment. II IN clearly
invalid and illegal and may be subjected
to attack either by the attorney for the
state or by the person or persons to
whom the -preSentment may relate. In
the same manner as amy prcsentment or
indictment may he attacked. This course
has been pursued In Georgia, where the
grand jury made n presentment reflect
ing upon the judges of the Superior
Court. The Encouragement moved to
expunge the presentment from the min
utes, which was accordingly done.
Chandler w. Rtker, former Prosecutor Of
the Pleas, was not prepared today to give
an authoritative opinion OF the right OF
grand juries to make presentments.
1.-The practlse Of having Essex County
Grand Juries make reports or -presentments
on the condition Of public institutions and
ef municipal bodies within the iurlsdic-
ton he said, has been, In effect, very
salutary and to the benefit Of good govern.
ment. 1t is my best recollection that the
practise has been in operation for at Least
thirty years, and 1 think the records will
show thar Il to go back even further
than that.
Chief Justice Depue, who was one Of
the best informed iurists Of our time, fire.
quently charged bis grand juries to in
yestigate public Institutions and to make
reports Of such investigations If the re-
suits obtained warranted such notice. /