Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1913-06-05
Supreme Courts Ruling IL,
Cosson-Brudsha1u Controversy

The right 70 appear before the
grand jury having been granted by
statute TO the attorney general, this
right could not be denied him by the
court. and we hold. therefore, that the
court exceeded its jurisdiction in deny
ing he attorney general in this case
the right 10 appear before the grand
july. upon his request, and the order
IS therefore annulled."
Closing its ruling with the above
paragraph. the state supreme court
again held that a grand jury is a tri-
bunal under our state law in deciding
the case Of George Cosson. attorney
general Of Iowa, VS.. the district court
Il Marshall county. Judge c. b. Bred
shaw. presiding. The case was tire
5-.= in which the so-called Gilman AR
son cases we're involved. A copy Of
me courts decision. which was handed
down Tuesday, vas received here yes
terday.
The state department. ot justice. thru
John Fletcher. an assistant 10 the at
torner general, moved the trial court
that Fletcher - allowed - NEE. with
the grand jury when il was investi-
eating the Randy" Long AMI Del.
Peapar cases. County Attorney a. G.
Daily objected 70 Fletcher appearing
+. fore the grand jury. and Judge Brad
shaw ov4rruiad Fletchers motion.
Claiming the right under IN statue to
appear before "dny court or tribunal
in the state and setting up the claim
that tribunal" in this particular
statute meant TIE grand jury. fetch
er appealed. COUNTY Attorney Daily
c.nnied that me statute c5uid DE so
interpreted.
Whether ar not the statute. when II
aid tribunal included in the mean
ing Of that word grand jury, vas al
that was involved in h. Gaze. The So
prem. court decides ia. ii does. AMI
reaffirrns it's ruling of IS lo"g ago as
1854 when II 50 heiG.
Extrac cts from the ruling on the POINT
AMI the case are as follows:
"Tha: the legislature had pn~e".
~ proper legislative enactment, u
give 20 the attorney ge-c-ll the Ii=ft
herein contended for, is not questioned.
Nor is the power granted 10 the "a
1cr,tv general by chapter Q If the acts
& the Thirty-third genera. assembly
i;1o,.ght 70 De beyond tire constitutional
power Of the legislature 70 grant. II Is
c..r;ended. however, 'a.t the power
granted by this chapter does not in
dude within it, when properly con-
s.rued. the right herein claimed, tha'
a Grand jury is not tribuna! WITHIN
tho meaning Of this statute. Ii the
legislature mad said. 1t snail be the
duty of the attorney general. when, IN
his judgment the interests Of the state
require. 10 appear for the state before
any court. or grand jury duly empan-
eIe6 in said court, for the purpose Of
giving information relative TO any
matter cognizant by il. and Tor the
nrrpose of examining witnesses, or OF
giving il legal advice touching matters
nandfng before it, there would be nc
controversy between the attorney gen
eral and the county attorney, such az
mas arisen III tiis case.
"Tne question, therefore, mere pre-
scented to us is: Did the Legislature
by the enactment OF chapter >, give u
the attorney general such power!
Tt will be noticed that the iegis.a
.nre has given to the attorney genera
,he right to appear before any court OF
tribunal within the state. when, IN his
Judgment. the interests OF the state re-
ouire him to do so. That, by the use
~ the word tribunal in this statute, the
legislature intended to authorize ARD
empower the attorney general TO APP
pear before the several grand juries' o.