Los Angeles herald., 1908-10-25
Los ANGELES HERALD: SUNDAY MORNING, 1908

that the information would be hearsay.
The witness stated to the jury, You
can get the witnesses IL you want TO
learn that 1t further appears from
the affidavit that he had to some ex-
tent employed agents and detectives
for the purpose of investigating the
charge which he made, and, In response
to the question: DO you know anyone,
Mr. Woolwine,. who could assist this
grand jury in arriving at the truth of
the charges which you have made, that
vice Is being protected in the city of
Los Angeles?' he responded, think
I do. Then, asked to give the names
of any such persons, he again refused
on the ground that the testimany
would be irrelevant, incompetent and
immaterial.
Objections overruled
"At the argument had upon the re-
turn to the order to show cause, an
additional ground was urged as a rea-
son why the witness should not be
compelled to answer, to-wit, that he
was a public officer, and that any com
munications which might have been
made to him by third persons were
made in official confidence, and that
the public interests would suffer by
the disclosure. This objection was not
urged at the hearing before the grand
| jury, and for that reason should not
be here considered; but, assuming that
| it was properly made at the time of
the examination of the witness, there
| is no merit in 1t, for reasons which are
| hereinafter stated.
The chief objection urged, however,
on behalf of respondent, is that section
919 of the penal code provides that
| in the investigation Of a charge for the
purpose of either presentment or in
| dictment the grand jury can receive
! 4. L.
! by witnesses produced and sworn be-
fore them. The grand jury
can receive none but legal evidence,
and the best evidence in degree, to the
exclusion of hearsay or secondary evil
dence' that the testimony called for
would be hearsay, and irrelevant and
| immaterial as evidence against any
person who might be indicted at the
close of the investigation then being
conducted by the grand jury.
From the affidavit Of the foreman
of the jury it appears that at the time
witness Woolwine was being interro-
gated before that body the jury was
endeavoring to obtain information re-
garding the charge made by the said
Woolwine that public officials in the
city of Los Angeles were protecting
vice therein. This inquiry fell directly
within the line of the duty of the jury
OF course, If the power OF the jury was
limited in that investigation to receiv-
ing evidence only of witnesses having
knowledge of the fact of the commits
sion of such offenses, and the jury had
no authority to pursue a charge made
by way of information laid before
them. and require the informant to
furnish them the means by which they
might prosecute the inquiry further
then the objections urged by the re-
spondent, that the questions to which
he refused answer called for incompe-
tent and immaterial testimony, would
be well taken.
"It is clear as legal proposition that
If an Indictment were returned and
were founded upon hearsay testimony
only, such an indictment would not be
supported by legal evidence. If the
witness Woolwine had answered the
questions, giving the names of his in
formants, and had further stated what
information they had given to him re-
garding the alleged facts of the mis-
conduct of said officials, and the grand
jury had founded an indictment upon
that testimony. there would be no le-
gal evidence to support it, The dis
tinction should be pointed out, how
ever, that the grand jury, at the time
of the refusal of the witness to an
swer questions, had not sought to
learn what the witnesses whose names
Mr.. Woolwine might be acquainted
with had told him regarding any mis-
conduct of said officials in the city of
| Los Angeles; they only required him
| to furnish them the names of wit
nesses who had pretended to relate to
him the facts, in order that they might
interrogate such witnesses under oath
and adduce legal testimony tending to
show the commission of an offense
against the laws, if any could be ad-
duced.
1.-THE grand jury, under the oath
taken by its members, was required to
diligently inquire into all public Of
fenses committed within the county of
Los Angeles, and into any willful and
corrupt misconduct in office of public
officials of every description. Pursu-
ant to the Injunction of the law in that
regard, after an accusation had in
effect been made by the witness. that
officials of the city of Los Angeles had
been guilty of willful and corrupt mis-
conduct in office, in that they had pro-
tected vice within such city, the jury
demanded of the witness to furnish
them the means of further prosecuting
the inquiry by giving names of persons
who had informed him that such mis-
conduct had been committed.
''They were acting wholly within
their authority as an inquisitorial body
and were entitled to be furnished with
any information possessed by respond
ent which would aid them in securing
the attendance of witnesses who might
give testimony in support of the charge.
For that purpose the testimony called
for by the questions to which answers
were refused would be competent, rele-
want and pertinent to the inquiry upon
which the jury was then engaged.
"As to the last objection suggested at
the argument, 10 wit: That the witness
as public official had the right to re-
fuse to answer the questions on the
ground that public interests would suf-
fer by the disclosure, it is a sufficient
answer to say that the grand jury was
then engaged in conserving to a high
degree the public interest by investi-
eating the charge made before them
that public officials had been guilty of
misconduct in office. The public in
terest which would demand the disclo-
sure to the grand jury of the informa-
tion sought from the witness would be
superior to any which the witness
might be able to assign as a reason for
refusing to answer the questions pro-
pounded to him.
"An order will therefore be made
directing the respondent, when he shall
again appear before the grand jury and
be required to do so, to furnish to the
jury information regarding the names
of persons who have informed him
Lo xysa