Year: 1878

THE GRAND JURY SYSTEM.


1t is "consummation devoutly to be
wished" that If it be within the bounds
OF possibility, the Const itu;ienal Conven-
ition soon to assemble will do away with
the cumbrous Grand Jury system, and
adopt some less expensive and less intri-
cate method of ascertaining in what cases
of Criminal Proceedure the evidence
against party accused of public Of
fence is such as to render further investi-
CATION necessary. We say if it be with
in the bounds of possibility" for the ree-
son that there is diversity Of opinion in
the minds of men who have made the
law their study, whether the Federal
Constitution will permit the innovation.
That instrument preserves the right OF
trial by jury, and the With amendment
thereto declares that no person shall be
held TO answer for capital or otherwise
infamous crime unless upon the present.
ment or indictment Of Grand Jury. AT
the first reading this would seem to be
conclusive in the premises, but there are
able legal minds who contend that this
amendment is intended to apply only to
crimes of which the United States Courts
could take cognisance. 1t is probable the
question will be viewed in all its bearings
before any definite action is taken upon it,
for il this article is intended to apply to
State Courts, Of course any legislation,
constitutional or otherwise, would be nu-
gatory if it contravened the supreme law
of the land.


But, granting that the Grand Jury
system cannot be cstirsly done away
with, it can be very much simplifed, and
shorn Of many Of Its obnoxious features.
AS it is in vogue now it is universally sd-
mitted TO be stupendous humbug. It's
deliberations are secret and one sided, aud
as q general thing a p,fma focta case
can be made out against a party against
whom there has been found legal evidence
sufficient to justify a magistrate in hold
ing ths party to answer. OF late, more
liberal ruling of coarts recommends tho
Grand Jury to hear evidence for the de-
fence MS well as for the prosecution, and
by SO doing in many cases party charg-
ed with an offense is enabled 10 produce
evidence which will explain tho charge
away, and Tho people are not put to the
expense, nor the community to the loss
of time attendant upon final trial.


Nevertheless, there hes grown up
well founded prejudice against the Grand
Jury system which call. loudly for it.
modification, to say the least. 1t has
been said, with we do not know how
much truth, but from tae lights before
us we believe it to be the fact, that tho
new State of Colorado has a method Of
investigation, which is a vast improve
ment upon the present cum brous system.
A commission of three magistrates Of
each county examine all evidence Of al.
legged offences, and decide which charges
should be ignored, and which brought to
trial. 1t looks to us as If this were a
speedy and equitable method Of examin-
ing and inquiring into effsnses alleged to
have been committed against tho law.-
And it is certainly far less Objectionable
on the score OF expense to the public and
inconvenience to citizens than the present
system. And it should be borne in mind
that ours is favored county. Lying off
the main lines of travel our people is in
the main composed Of those who have
made the county their residence for nanny
years. They are quiet, orderly, law
abiding people. There has been but ono
conviction for felony during period
extending over some four years, and the
necessity for impanneling Grand Jury
has not arisen but three times during that
period. With other counties less favored,
the case has been far different. Take
Shasta, for instance. which has sent thr-
teen men to the State Prison since the
beginning Of the current year. Nearly
every other county in the State finds it
necessary to inpannel Grand Jury at
each term Of County Court. But wheth.
er one be called often or otherwise, the
system is none the less a humbug which
it is devoutly to be hoped the Con.titu-
tonal Convention will devise some plan
to rid us Of.