Los Angeles herald., 1908-10-20

JUDGE w. P. JAMES
here with a written answer. The affi-
davit does not contain quarter OF
the proceedings in the grand jury
room. The entire record was submit
ted to the district attorney and has
been cut down. The whole proceed
ings should be given, as they have a
| bearing on my reasons for not reply
| ing to questions"
The court instructed the stenog-
rapher to proceed with the reading of
his notes, instructing him, however, TO
leave out any discussion in the grand
Jury ROOM Anything of that kind
will be left OUT said Judge James.
THE court or the grand jury room
cannot be made the arena for per-
sonal discussion between officials
Woolwine-Do | understand the
questions of the foreman are the ques-
tions Of the jury?
Here was the first inkling given to
outsiders that the members of the
grand jury We're not pulling together
and that there was dissension in the
ranks of the inquisitors.
Judge James ruled that Mr.. Wool
wines understanding was correct.
'They are the questions of the entire
! jury" he said, "unless dissented to.
! That is what the foreman is appointed
for. The jury cannot have nineteen
! heads"
Court Suggests Affidavit
The court suggested that an affidavit
containing all the proceedings before
the grand jury be filed by Mr.. Wool
wines attorney, and the stenographer
was excused.
"If file an affidavit here" said Mr..
| Wy
transpiring in the grand jury room. In
violation of my oath of secrecy, might
be cited for contempt
1--WE will take care Of that" respond
| ed the court.
Mr.. Edgerton then proceeded with his
argument 1--WE urge" he said, "that
| the questions call for a conclusion of
the witness. The grand jury can only
receive the best evidence, and the ques-
tions put to Mr.. Woolwine by Fred
ericks were not proper, as they called
for hearsay and incompetent testimony
| There seems to be no warrant for the
grand jury to act except on the regu-
| lar rules of evidence; they are bound
by these rules, and they have no right
to ask any question which would not
be allowed by court"
Suppose person appears before the
grand jury and says he has certain
information" replied Judge James,
but refuses to give the names of wit
nesses to uphold his information; can
he not be forced to give their names ??
Precedent Is Cited
Attorney Edgerton contended the
| jury did not have this right, and cited
| the case of a newspaper reporter who
refused to give evidence before the
grand jury in 1908. when that body
was investigating certain charges in
connection with the building of the
court house. The witness was fined
and imprisoned but later was released
on habeas corpus proceedings by Judge
! Smith.
1--WE claim" he said, "that Mr. Wool
wines right in refusing to answer these
| questions is valuable one to him.
The question whether he knew of the
commission of a crime in Los Angeles
would be hearsay."
! Major McComas interrupted "The
+ grand jury was beginning an inquiry
to result in an indictment or eXonera-
tion," he said. 1.-THE point / make is
that the inquiry is not confined to
competent and material evidence, and
counsel has cited no authority to the
contrary. What do they ask? They
ask: DO you know anything about
vice? He replies: L know nothing of
my own knowledge. Then they ask:
DO you know of persons who do know
about the infraction of the penal laws?'
He says he does. Who are they? And
he says he won't tell.
'Will the grand jury then give up
the inquiry? No, sir. They have the
power to inquire largely. They may
reach matters that cannot be reached
in any other way. They had the -ight
to ask these questions of Mr.. Wool
wine.
Now counsel says the possession of
that information is valuable to njal.
Yes, it is also valuable to the grand
jury, and also to the public.
May Use Various SIeuths
when the man or men are found
who can tell what these city officials
have done, then the jury is limited to
what is competent and material, but
when they are getting on the trail they
must do all in their power-use all sorts
of sleuths. If one witness doesn't know,
but knows who does know, that wit
ness must tell. [ don't know of what
value these secrets are to him (Wool-
wine). Certainly they are valuable to
the grand jury. Certainly If he di-
vulged them they would be held as sa-
credly as in his own BOSOM"
Mr.. Woolwine smiled doubtfully. 1t
has been his contention that in giving
the information he is believed have
gathered to District Attorney Freder-
icks, either personality or before the
grand jury, that information would be
used as a stumbling block in the in
vestigation and everything done to
bring the inquiry into alleged graft to
naught.
"I'll give the matter some investiga-
ton of my own" said Judge James.
Meanwhile" he continued, turning
to Mr.. Woolwine and his attorneys,
"you have the privilege of filing an
affidavit containing all the proceedings
before the grand jury on the day in
question, leaving out, however, the dis
cussions. The matter will be contin-
ued until 10 o'clock Saturday"
Affidavit Filed Later
Mr.. Woolwine's aff1davit was filed
later in the day. In this aff1davit he
says he was prevented by the foreman
of the grand jury and the district at
torney from interposiag certain objec-
tions.
According to the affidavit, Mr.. Wool
wine explained, in answer to the ques-
ton why he refused to tell the jury the
names of witnesses, that the district
attorney was doing everything he could
to block the investigation; had shown
TO one party the evidence submitted to
the Jury, and had declared publicly
that 81 had presented nothing before
this grand jury, thus violating his oath
of office"
It believe" he added, that IL / giva