White Pine news. [volume] (East Ely, Nev.) 1920-1923, 1922-05-28

/ tate tEat all actloES or any public
officialor inquisitoaai body shall be
controlled by the rlic of reason and
justice. While on the one hand they
can be protected Ia ib,, proper per-
formancs of their duties; ON the
othcr hey shou | moi to given an
unlimited field ii which 10 20 beyond
nccessii. and without rcas. :. without
justification, without any evidence
and brins down upon any ,...zi.., un.
just tr nreasoaas,,e criticism Now.
lcte che an el're,ne example and
see the ctnger :su ). osing that some
l'rson. influential. ro1ll bv L. ascn
of influence, so ccnnige as TO have
hi;asslf aiaced urc- gsaa / jury and
oet1g "s'hout Character. AL bs rca-
sJa of J., influence. WELD his malice
against some other citizen, charge
him with some henious crime, hold
him up to criticism and ridicule In
the community without the formality
OF indictment or presentment. 1t is
reasonable TO suppose that such per-
son should be the subject of such
criticism and charge without hope of
vindicating his good name? / don't
think the law contemplates that, any
more than 1t contemplates the fact
that the grand jury must be protect
ed in its duties. 1t eOntemplates
while protecting them that they shall
act as just men, that they shall act
toward all situations in spirit OF
fairness and fair play. The law pro-
tects them to that point and when
they exceed that l cannot see why a
grand jury or anyone else, or any
other official. If he exceeds the juris-
diction and out of malice, out OF
spite. proceeds to do some things
which are not thought justifable.
that their actions shall not be the
subject of inquiry and a determine
tion made of why they did 1t.
Now. 1t Is true from the citations
made that the question has only beer
decided in a few states, that Is upon
this particular question of exceeding
jurisdiction. The recent decision to
allow inquiry when jurisdiction Is
exceeded Is in accordance with the
modern rule and In accordance with
good conscience and the proper con-
duct of affairs. In Nevada, in the
case cited, the Eureka bank case.
while not hingeing upon that point
the quotations which the Supreme
Court make and cite with approval
show the manner in which the mod
ern thought Is pointing and that the
&OuIl Ut Ludt tluts WnltQ
not determining the question had In
just one and should be followed. That
Is a rule which commends itself to
this court I cannot see why that
would not be just rule for all con-
cerned. l cannot see how 1t would
tend to retard justice because of the
fact that grand jurors in the ex-
ercise of their duties. IL they do so
fairly and with good motives. should
not complain of having any actions
of theirs investigated IL they are out
side of the functions which they are
sworn to perform. | mean by that II
they charge crime their duty Is to
do so by either presentment or in
dictment. If they do IL otherwise
they exceed their jurisdiction. Now
then, they have in this report charged
the commission of crime. | think
that IN charging the commission OF
a crime even though they stated the
facts upon which 1t was based, that
in so charging the commission. and
not doing so by presentment or in
dietment they exceed their iurisdic-
tion. II cannot be said that If you
charge a man with grating or with
misappropriation OF funds or misap-
plication of funds that that Is fair
comment on his officiG, acts. Ii he
was guilty of that then presentment
or an indictment should have been
rendered in this court so think that
under the circumstances. and to that
extent they did exceed their purisdic-
ton and the facts upon which 1t
was based Is Il proper subject of In
quiry.
However, | cannot accept in its
entirety the reasoning of the Michi-
gan Court in the light of our statute
as to the extent to which its inquiry
can go. l do not believe that the
ends of justice OF orderly procedure
In any manner requires the disclos-
ures of how any grand juror may
have voted or what any grand juror
may have said The question may
naturally arise. why. IL inquiry can
be made along certain lines, when
secrecy Is enjoined. can it not be
made along others? For this rea-
son, that the same justification for
1t does not exist. Whatever a grand
Juror may say in a grand jury room
or how he may vote cannot in any
manner injure another party. 1t re
mains within the confines of the
breasts of those grand jurors and
never comes out so that IL cannot In
iure the party. But. IL they make
report which goes to the public and
II is In excess of their jurisdiction.
then reason and justice would dictate
that the evidence upon which that
was predicated may be of proper
source of inquiry I merely mako
the last statement so that counsel
will get teh idea of the court clearly
and confine themselves in the investi
CATION within those limits. Taking
the view the court which does that
in the statements made charging the
county commissioners with crime and
not by presentment or indictment, the
grand jury exceeded its jurisdiction.
think the sources of information
upon which IL was predicated is
proper source of inquiry and the OBJ
! lection is overrulcd."
Memorial Day to BE Observed in Ely
| Aapnorial dav will ha fittinglv col.