Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/358

 346 FEDERAL REPORTER. �respect that •when a grand jury has caused several persons accused of crime to be summoned before them and examined as witnesses, and had thereupon found indictments against them, and a motion was made to quash the indictments, the affidavits of the accused would not be received to show the facts, because public policy would not permit the transaction before a grand jury to be diselosed, (U. S. v. Brown, 1 Sawyer, 531;) and thus, although the grand jury had trampled upon the constitutional right of the accused not to be compelled to be a witness against himself, the court refused to entertain an inquiry to ascertain whether, withoat this flagrant violation of privilege, there was any evidence to warrant the finding an indictment. �Other authorities, however, are found which have adopted more liberal and as it seems to me more sensible views, and assert the right and duty of the court to exercise a salutary supervision over the proceedings of a grand jury. It is only practicable to do this by renloving the veil of secrecy wheu- ever evidence of what hàs transpired before them becomes necessary toprotect public or private rights. Thus, in Low's Case, 4 Greenl. 439, the grand jurors were permitted to testify that they acted under the mistaken impression that it was sufBcient if a majority of the jurors concurred in finding a bill and twelve had not concurred. In U. S. v. Cooledge, 2 Gall. 363, Judge Story received the affidavit of a witness to prove that he was not in fact sworn when examined before the grand jury, saying : "It is of the highest importance that the institution be preserved in its purity, and that no citizen be tried until he has been regularly accused by the proper tribunal." These cases arose upon motion -to quash the indict- ment. �In Burdick v. Hunt, 43 Ind. 381, it is said there is no suf- ficient reason why the prosecuting attorney may not be called upon in a court of justice to disclose any evidence given or proceedings had before a grand jury. And the foUowing au- thorities are to the efifect that generally the evidence of grand jurors is competent whenever it is necessary to ascertain who was the prosecutor: Sikea y. Dunhar, 2 Wheat. Sel. N. P. ����