Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/357

 tJNITED STATE8 V. FARBINGTON. 845 �but he identified books and vouehers of his banb, and his tes- timony tended to show irregularities -wbich might be imputed to the defendant Eichards. If the case against Eichards stood alone, it could not be said that, as to him, there waB not sufËcient evidence to authorize an indictment. �This summary of the proceedings before the grand jury is Buffieient to indicate that they "were such as to seriously en- danger, if not to preclude, an intelligent and fair considera- tion of the charges preferred against the accused. It is the duty of the court, in the control of its proceedings, to see to it that no person shall be subjected to the expense, vexation, and contumely of a trial for a criminal offence unless the charge bas been investigated and a reasonable foundation shown for an indictment or information. It is due also to the government to require, before the trial of an accused per- son, a fair preliminary investigation of the chargea against him. The cases are frequent when, after ail these precau- tions bave been observed, it appears upon the trial that the government bas been subjected to discredit and expense which might bave been avoided if there had been a more careful preliminary invest'ffation. �Notwithstanding the reasons which exist forinsisting upon a rigid adherence to this practice, in the interests of decorum, economy, and justice, it bas been zealonsly maintained that fio confidential and sacred should the proceedings of a grand jury be considered that every avenue should be closed which may lead to a scrutiny of their transactions. Accordingly, ancient precedents bave been enforced, and even extended, in modern cases, for the purpose of preventing any inquiry into the proceedings of the grand jury, and many authorities are cited to the effect that not only is it not permissible to show any irregularity or misconduct in their proceedings, by the testi- mony of any juror, but also that the lips of witnessea who appeared before them are to be sealed, and that no person whose duty it may bave been to be present shall be heard te impeach or impugn the propriety and regularity, of their pro- ceedings. �In one of these cases it was held by a court entitlcd to great ����