ant appears before the average police justice, the latter is apt to credit the affidavit of the former; it adds to his prestige to do so; and the more papers he sends to the grand jury, the wider is his fame as a magistrate. A warrant is issued, the defendant appears. Suddenly snatched away from his business, he is destitute of proofs of innocence, and while in a competent trial court no defend ant is ever expected to prove innocence, the whole burden of proving guilt resting on the prosecutor, in a police cour the is called on to prove innocence, when least prepared to do so. The advice of counsel and the dic tates of good sense alike prompt him to waive examination; that is, to reserve all grounds of his defense, and simply declare his innocence of the charge. This he does, and the papers in the case, including the complaint of the accuser in full, are sent to the grand jury, the police justice endorsing the complaint so far as to state over his sig nature that he finds "probable cause" to believe the defendant guilty, and therefore commits him for trial. The functions of the grand jury are in most cases simple. They are defined substan tially as follows: That the grand jury shall find a true bill of indictment against the accused person if the charge is such as would lead to a conviction if uncontradicted or not disproved. As a matter of fact almost any charge satisfies this requirement. Fewer indictments would be found if grand juries were to summon defendants to explain the charges; but such a course is not encour aged by the authorities, whose plan it is, and very properly, to secure a trial of the case. The indictment being now filed in the District Attorney's office, the defendant is called on to plead to it; and his trial then awaits the convenience of the public prose cutor. This convenience is an unknown quantity; and, so to speak, a " movable feast." A defendant never knows on what day he may be called to the bar. And when
his case is called, it is quite upon the cards that the prosecution will not be ready. Everything depends upon the presence of the complainant; and many a complainant, who is ready enough to sign his name to a lying affidavit, in which every alleged fact is distorted to his own advantage and to the prejudice of an accused per son, out of which affidavit grows the " prob able cause" for believing the defendant guilty, hesitates before coming into court and facing the cross-examination of some able lawyer before a jury. The complainant fails to appear; he or she is not in the county or State, and the prosecutor post pones the case. In cases where the com plainant fails to appear on the first call he is very apt to continue to absent himself, until the rules of the court compel a dismis sal of the indictment. Judge Cooley was once examining a class of law students for admission to the Bar. "Give a definition of a legal axiom," he said to one of the class. "There is no legal wrong without a remedy," was the response. "Well, young man," said the Judge, "the usual enunciation of the proposition is that there is no wrong without a legal remedy; but if you have discovered a new truth, and can maintain your discovery, you will have inaugurated a millenium in jurisprudence." But notwithstanding the sarcasm implied in these words, there should be no wrong in legal procedure without a remedy, and so long as the law of the land permits the arrest of one citizen upon the complaint of another, it should go further, and confer upon the ac cused person the right to elect between the dismissal of the indictment, or a jury trial upon whatever evidence may be in the pos session of the public prosecutor, in all cases where, after reasonable time, the complainant fails to appear. If a defendant has been engaged in some shady transaction, ques tionable or against public policy, he would doubtless be satisfied with a dismissal; but if absolutely innocent, as many accused per
