of the District Attorney and indicted them one and all for grand larceny. It would have looked better if Mr. Jerome had refused to allow any of his assistants to be made Magistrates by the Mayor. In all this the people have wondered why the Public Prosecutor did not send the grafters to jail. That in the interest of justice the Grand Jury should be abolished and the work it does at present given to a Board of Criminal Experts with enlarged powers. I also affirm that the Grand Jury is no more necessary to the administration of the criminal law in our day than the feudal barons of ten centuries ago or that a canal boat should take the place of our Hudson River steamboats. At the present moment the District Attorney stands at the door of the Grand Jury room. He holds the key and practically controls it. The Grand Jury spends about two hours a day attending to whatever public business the District Attorney lays before them. In some states any one suspected of a crime may go before the Grand Jury and present his side of the case. In this state it is not the practice. In a large number of cases men have been indicted without their knowledge, and were compelled to fight for their rights in the Courts, so as to be free from the stain that rested on them. In New York County if the District Attorney sees fit he may permit a single Policeman or other person, to go before the Grand Jury and give a one-sided opinion as to the guilt of some person charged with crime, although he may not possess one particle of legal evidence. If the Grand Jury were abolished, a Board of criminal experts could make a thorough investigation of all charges brought against people, and in all likelihood would give them an opportunity to be heard in their own behalf before they were branded as felons. And this is only right. Only a few years ago the editor of a small monthly paper in this city was promptly indicted by the Grand Jury for libel for exposing the rascality of Insurance grafters, a work which Governor Hughes has since done legally before the Assembly Investigating Committee. At the time we mention when the insurance grafters were cut to the heart by the trenchant articles that exposed their conduct to public scorn, they went before the Grand Jury and charged this Insurance man with libel. They were permitted to tell a one-sided story to the Grand Jury, so as to silence this critic. Of course he was not allowed to make any reply till after he was brought into Court and branded as a felon. The indictment was afterwards quashed and he received some damages. And this is but a fair sample of how hundreds of men have been ruined by such unjust methods. In this case the Grand Jury simply did what they were told to do by the District Attorney, he having been wrongly informed by the insurance grafters. Board of Criminal Experts