OCR Text |
Show Illegal i'roodmliiijjs. The provision in the Roland law upon whh'h tho grand jury commit lee bavo m-i'inuvl to oxuminn and report on ih-j city bjoks U as follows: Tho unmet jury nuul iiiiiii-n into llio i' Am' i.f i'vory i''i'"i impn iird with in lln dMriot iH H t'rimiiiiO ulmtK.t ami not iudiCed; inl tlif O 'luliUiin and m mjiich-mcul mjiich-mcul .it' the .ulilii: pri-mm williin tho dU-uit't, dU-uit't, n ml into llu w i I I'n 1 ! I'.MTiipl mivondut-l in ii Aloe ut'llui jmtilio .I'lUira of iivory dii-oripliiin williin ih district; and tluiy ro ulso onlill-d t t' ro ki'Ci's hI nil roiu.iimtilo tinuM to tho mlillo prison, mul to tli" oxiimimiti ti, Willi ul oliari;!', of all piiblw records witliiu llio dislrii t. Tliero is no oilier law bearing up n the subject, and clearly under this section the present grand jury have transcended their poweiJ and duties. There is no question that the provision provi-sion gives the grand jury the right to examine public records, but it does not give the right seporately to one, two or any number or tins jury W'.a lhau a quorum ot tho whole. No power is given the jury to delegate its duties or its privileges. If that body can apportion their work, assigning the examination ot city books to some, tbo examination of nylums and jails to others, they can also sul apart a commit leo for indie tin x On charges of larceny, another for murder, mur-der, and so on. Xo one will contend that the jury can delegate its power to indict; and if they cannot delegate dele-gate it iu one instance they certainly cannot in another. Hence, when two or three members of tho grand jury go to tho city hall to eximino tho books, they are not tho gmnd jury, but merely impudent, incjuisi- j tivo cilizeas; and the custodians ot the records are under no rnoro obligations to exhibit to them the public accounts, ac-counts, than they ara to show them to Sailor Jack or the man in the moon. Somo of the best legal minds in tho city hold to this theory, which is undoubtedly conect. Again, the grand jury having the right to examine the public records, have not the right to make their dis-ooveriis dis-ooveriis public, be those discoveries good or bad. Whatever duties or privileges tho inquisitors have nm acquired by statute, which i ai!e:-t on the publication or retto.-t. li the law implies anything im matter, it is that no pu'.i i-city i-city should be givem them. Tuis interpretation must bo given for the reason that the opposito would thwart the very purposes of the la-- authur-tzing authur-tzing the graud jury to make tho examinations. If malfeasance or "wilful aud corrupt misconduct iu office" were discovered by the jury, the publication of such discovery would warn the guilty .to escape. Where the grand jury now sitting in this district found their authority, first, for sonding a delegation to the city hall, then for framing a report and presenting it to the court, and lastly, where the court found its authority for acceptiug and permitting permit-ting the report to bo published is unknown. It certainly docs nut exist on the statute beoks. In their anxiety to subserve the iuteres'sofa certain clique in the city book matter, the grand jury have stepped outside of their legitimate duty, and gone wildly astray saying nothing of the mass ol errors and libels called a report and have far overr3achtd their authority. Their report should be expunged from the court records, and the over-anxious, impertinent i jury ceusured. |