Weekly journal-miner., 1913-08-13
EDITOR PLACED ON CARPET BY
 GRAND JURY
JUDGE SMITH, HOWEVER, DECIDES WITNESS WAS
 WITHIN HIS RIGHTS BY REFUSING TO TAKE OATH
INQUISITORIAL BODY NO POWER TO ENJOIN SEC RECY AS PART OF THE PLEDGE TO BE TAKEN
(From Wednesdays Daily)

Evidently with the purpose of
 adding a little tobasco or some other
 caloric kind of condIment to it's
 proceedings, the grand jury had the
 newspaper profession on the judicial
 carpet yesterday, in an attempt to
 have the editor of the Journal-Miner punished for contempt for refusing
 to take part of the oath which that
 body or some member of 1t had
 evolved
 But Judge Smith decided that the
 witness was within his rights, and
 so told that body in the afternoon,
 after he had an opportunity to look
 up the law governing the matter.
 The meat of the whole matter IS
 that the inquisitorial body exceeded
 it's jurisdiction when 1t attempted to
 include in the oath a provision that
 the witness would pledge himself
 to not divulge the testimony given
 before 1t or what had transpired
 while he was closeted in the holy
 of holies.
 Until some obliging Legislature enacts a statute incorporating such an oath. witnesses will be free to
 walk out Of the grand jury room and
 talk to their hearts content about the proceedings. what questions were asked them. on what subjects they were quizzed and any other informa- ton they care to give out without fear they will be called to account that Is as long as the information divulged does not obstruct the ends of justice.
 It seems these are troublesome days and nights around this latitude and longitude. for gambling which has been the recent subject of in duiry. has set the town by the ears. For the enlightenment of the dear public the Journal-Miner in it's yes terday'S issue said that at the Mon day morning session the subject of gambling occupied the attention of the jurors Evidently for the purpose of learning the source of this in formation. the editor was haled be- fore the jury yesterday morning and his attention called to the article. he being asked whether he had seen 1t before 1t went into the paper. An reply was given. But before this interrogation was put. he | was asked to take the oath. En- quiring as to its nature, the reply | was made that it was to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. | That seemed to be a fair proposi- ton and was assented to. But when the affirmation was being administer cd. the foreman tackled to it's end | the following: And you swear you will not divulge what took place in this room while you were here as or words to that effect. There was nothing doing when it came 10 swallowing the tail to the legal oath. and that is what caused all the subsequent proceedings along the contempt line. Hardly had the was attached and before the court ne went. where the jury reported lim for "contempt" for refusing to ake the oath of secrecy. Judge smith took the matter under advise nent and at 4 o'clock in the after loon. when the persons indicted for gambling were being arraigned. the urv was called in.
 Without hearing argument from ,ither side. the jurist briefly and uccIntly stated that an examination lf the statutes of this and other States convinced him beyond doubt hatt he grand jury had no power to .ompel witness to take an oath of ecrecy and that body could not de. nand a more binding oath than that equired in a court of justice. which vas to tell the truth and nothing { ,ut the truth" However. he laid town the principle that if a witness , hould divulge the proceedings of . he body resulting in the obstruction 'f justice, contempt proceedings would lie. With these few kind [ words to the jury as to its powers nd limitations. the curtain was rung town, the grand jury returned to ] t's little room and the witness. urged of contempt and once again egally pure, was sent on his way eioicing.