Year: 1879

court and made its final report, and was dis
charged. The report is herewith given:


The grand jury deem it their duty to call at
tention to the delay of Justice and its increased
COST resulting from the narrow limits to which
the jurisdiction of the municipal court is re-
stricted by existing statutes. Much of the
time of the grand jury has been consumed in
the examination of trivial cases of larceny sent
up from the municipal court for want of iuris-
diction, because the articles alleged to have
been stolen were estimated to be worth more
than 500, or were stolen, even if not worth a
dime from shop or dwelling house.


With two exceptions, all the cases of larceny
before the grand jury were for articles whose
alleged value was less than $50. This, we learn,
has been the experience of other grand juries
Their time at every term has been
largely occupied with the examination of cases
of this sort, which should have been disposed
of in the municipal court, and would have
been but for lack of jurisdiction.


The evil Is serious one, as it involves the
commitment Of the accused to Jail to await
the formality of an indictment, their main
tenance Tor months at public expense, the
IN ury and oppression of an unj ust detention
in the case of the innocent, q practical denial
OF the constitutional right to speedy trial,
and the multiplication of expense and costs
by what is virtually second trial in those
cases where indictments are found.


The grand jury are strongly of the opinion
that these evils could be in a great degree
remedied by legislation enlarging the juris-
county, so as to embrace cases
.,where the alleged value of stolen
articles does not exceed $50 (or even 300, for
the loser is apt to overestimate the value great
ly) aud without regard to whether the theft
was from shop or dwelling house or not. But
method of attaining the desired end, We urgent
ly recommend that such legislation will be
sought as will relieve the county of the need
less expenses of the present system; accused
persons of needless delays of Justice and grand
iuries of the needless trouble of examining
cases which should properly belong to the Pc
lice court.


The grand jury deems this matter Of such
Importance that they desire to invoke the as
slstance OF all the proper authorities to give
practical effort to recommendation, which past
experience leads to fear will otherwise
be treated with the indifference which has
awaited the suggestions in the interest of re-
form, which have been made from time to
time by the twenty-three men who are sum-
moned from their business every six months to
deal with these matters.


There seems no other mode provided by law for
ln4uiring into and calling public attention to
evils arising from the lax and perfunctory dis
charge of official duties, from defects in the
legal modes of administration. At least, there
has been none until the recent appointment of
Puolo eAtWlnei unuer State autnOrlty prog
vlded an effective mode of detecting and COZ
recting abuses in county bookkeeping and
handling of county funds. But outside of
these lies wide domain of public
affairs which are subject to the
scrutiny of no legally constituted
BODY, save as usage has sanctioned the prac-
hce by the grand jury; and it is to be regret
ted that their Investigations have usually been
treated as idle formality, and their recon-
mendations with Indifference by the public
authorities. Those of successive grand juries
on subjects clearly within their statutory du-
ties are inferred in the pigeon holes of the
clerks office, and are rarely heard of again or
acted upon.


This Is an evil which it seems to us might be
corrected by legislation requiring that the
county commissioners take cognizance of the
reports and recommendations of the grand jury
kpertalning to the public welfare) and report
their action thereon and their reasons therefor
to the court, to be transmitted to the next
grand jury for is information.


THE BURKE CASE.


We have given serious consideration las re-
ported in the GLoBE) to the case to which the
court in its charge to the grand jury called
special attention, that if James Fl. Burke,
charged with the execution of the executive
warrant for the extradition of a citizen of this
county In such manner rs to constitute the
crime of kidnapping, committed for the purpose
or preventing an application for a writ of ha-
beas corpus to test the validity of said warrant.


While, in the judgment of the grand jury,
the evidence before it was not sufficient to JUS
tify an Indictment in the case in this county
for kidnapping, all the circumstances of the
hasty and srrreptitious removal of the prisoner
forbid the doubt that it was intended to pre-
vent an application to the courts for writ of
habeas corpus.


1t seems to us unfortunate that existing laws
provide no remedy for acts of violence aud op
preston in the execution of warrtn,s for tue
extradition of alleged criminals; thou, IN
amounting to Il practical denial OF u sacred cnn-
stitutional right; and the grand jury are deeply
impressed with the necessity for additional
lesa! safeguards for the protection of the rights
of citizens from such hagrant abuses of the
constitutional method of extradition.


The reports of the several committees of the
grand jury that visited the county Jail, the
alms-house and hospital are hereto attached
and made part of this report, and their sug-
gestlons and recommendations united in by all
the members of the grand jury


All of which is respectfully submitted.


VIM. Il. MARSHALL, Foreman.