yourselves to the evidence thus regularly furnished with the bill of indictment. If that evidence satisfies your minds either that a reasonable ground of accusation exists-or that the allegations of the indictments are not sustained—you will signify the former by finding the bill as it is technically called-or the latter, by returning it endorsed ignoramus. If however it shall happen, that some facts developed in the course of this evidence, require further explanation in order to decide their bearing-or if they lead to the knowledge of other sources of information not previously explored-in consequence of which your minds are embarrassed and your judgments necessarily suspended, you will then be at liberty by application to the Court for the aid of its process to seek such additional testimony as may relieve your doubtswith this distinct caution however, that as mere matter of defence-in answer to or in contradiction of facts once clearly proved you can hear no witnesses. This rule flows naturally from the principle, that the finding of a Grand Jury is not intended to establish the guilt of the accused, but merely asserts its prima facie existence and justifies the law, ever tender of the reputation of a citizen, and ever unwilling without sufficient cause to place it in jeopardy, in proceeding to the formality, and painful exposure of a public arraignment. If all the testimony usually produced before the petit jury, were admitted to the chamber of your secret session, your finding in its influence on the character of the accused, would be fully equivalent to a verdict of guilty. He would undergo the condemnation of public opinion without those advantages of a public trial by his peers; himself being present, to confront the prosecutor and crossexamine the witnesses, which to the character, as well as to the person of every individual, the constitution has secured.

To the finding of a bill it is absolutely necessary that twelve at least of your number shall agree; and in all cases where a less number assents, your return as a matter of course must be "Ignoramus."

In all cases of indictments for misdemeanors returned Ignoramus" or in other words for offences below the degree of felony, which you may always distinguish by the omission of the word felonious, in the statement of the charge, you have the power and it your duty to decide and endorse upon the bill, whether the costs shall be paid by the county, or by the prosecutor. If you inflict the costs upon the prosecutor, you must distinctly name him in your endorsement, so that the Court may be enabled without delay to execute the sentence. This control over the costs, vested in the Grand Jury, is among the most valuable improvements which our Leislature has made, upon the rules of the Common Law, and the most salutary effects have always followed its judicious exercise. It is a weapon placed in your hands for the punishment of those, who frivolously or maliciously institute prosecutions, and who strive to wrest the arm of the law to their own purposes of interest or vengeance. By giving to the provision its full scope and efficacy, in all those cases where the ground of complaint is obviously trifling, or the prosecution has clearly proceeded from malice and falsehood, you will do much to lessen the business of this court, to save the poor from unnecessary and ruinous attendance on its sessions, and to break up that system of private warfare, which among certain classes of the community, has been too frequent ly carried on at public expense and under the mask of public justice.

171

So much for the special or what may be styled the retributive jurisdiction which belongs to your office. There is another branch of your authority, which may be distinguished as general and preventive.

Selected as you have been from the general mass of society, without reference to any consideration but your character and respectability, embracing within your number, individuals of various professions, talents, and pursuits-each of whom can furnish his due quota of observation and expérience, you necessarily combine a large fund of knowledge upon all subjects connected with the comon good. Upon these subjects it is expected of you to interchange sentiments, compare facts, and elicit evidence-and whenever it shall appear, that benefit may be produced or evil averted, by timely warning to the officers of justice, by an effort to stimulate public opinion, or to awaken the community to a sense of danger-it is your duty in the usual form of a presentment to the Court to make known your opinions. The practice of officers employed in the various departments of the public service-the police regulations of our city and neighbourhood-the operation of particular laws, ordinances, customs or habits--the existence of public inconveniences, the want of public improvements are familiar instances in point. Under this head may be classed, the duty which is expressly enjoined, to visit the several prisons of this city and county, inspect their condition, ascertain that the humane and salutary regulations provided for their government be duly enforced, and to make a report to the court on the whole subject before the close of your session.

To this general authority of a censorial kind with which Grand Juries are invested, no limit is prescribed by either law or convenience, except such as your own discretion and judgment will plainly dictate. Your supervision extends over the whole surface, and pervades the whole structure of the social system, and you should be prompt to mark, and fearless in exposing every instance of mismanagement, malpractice or neglect, which may become the source of injury or inconvenience.

On some occasions, Grand Juries have even extended their scrutiny to such leading measures of our state and general government, as have a necessary influence upon the morality or happiness of the country. Such appeals to be effectual, should of course be rare, and should be reserved for occasions of such magnitude and interest, as to justify a departure from the usual routine. Especially is it necesary, that by no act or expression, Grand Ju ries should interefere, or subject themselves even remotely to the suspicion of interfering with party politics. We are led to this remark by the prevalence of a practice in several parts of our country-though never it is believed in this city, of balloting in the Jury room, between the prominent candidates for some disputed office, and then publishing the result, that it may count for as much as it is worth in deciding the contest. In principle it is wrong, that they whose especial office it is to overlook all others, and to confine each element of society and of government to its proper sphere, should thus voluntarily and frivolously transcend the limits of their duty. It is an offence against the constitution, for any body of men, to bring the influence of their office however remotely to bear, on the freedom or the result of popular elections. It is still more mischievous in its practical operation, because it strikes at the root of all just confidence, in that noble institution, which is at once the boast of our law, and the corner stone of our liberty." Your power over offences is not confined to those for We have all lived long enough to realize the injurious which bills of indictment are in the first instance furnish-effects of party spirit, how it blights the affections, darked by the prosecuting officer. If the investigation of ens the judgment,confounds the distinctions of right and facts connected with such cases, shall lead to the knowl- wrong; how insidiously, and almost against our consent, edge of other crimes or misdemeanours of which no no- it steals into the heart & gains the controul over thought tice has yet been taken, or if the perpetration of an of- and action-how little we ought to trust ourselves-how fence be within the private knowledge of any one of your still less we are disposed to confide in others, when actnumber, it is your duty to present a statement to the ing under the influence of this delusion. We may all Court, who will cause an indictment to be framed and live to witness some tornado of popular feeling, such as submitted for your sanction this nation has never experienced, but such as have

swept & desolated other countries, which shall direct its cessary ingredient, and as the best standard for determinfury not merely against the men & measures, but against ing the motive. Subsequent advances in knowledge, the fundamental principles of the existing government. politeness, refinement and luxury, have tended to subIf so we shall appreciate the value of perfect purity institute skill for strength-art for mere muscular exertion, our courts of justice, of perfect exemption from the contagion of party. We shall fly to them as to the constitutional shelter from the violence of the storm. If we shall find them occupied at such a moment by the agents of party,and not by independent ministers of justice; may we at least be entitled to comfort from the reflection, that no agency of ours has contributed to the change. Should the majesty of the people and the majesty of the law, go forth to bow themselves in the house of idolatry -let them not "lean upon our arm," or plead our example. The Grand Juries which attend this court, are restrained by a special provision of the Legislature from taking cognizance of those offences of the deepest dye -such as Homicide, Burglary, Arson and the likewhich adopting the phraseology, without its full meaning, of the English Law, we call Felonies of death. All the offences below that grade, are the subjects of indictment and trial in this court. It is of course expected that your judgment upon them, will be governed by those rules and definitions, by which the law has distinguished each from the other, and a regard to which is necessary, in order that each may be assigned its appropriate punishment. For such rules and definitions, you will naturally look to the Court, whenever a difficulty arises in your minds.

At present some observations will be made upon two of those offences only.

Larceny is defined by Blackstone to be "the felonious taking and carrying away of the personal goods of another"-a more comprehensive definition, and one better suited to modern views of the subject, describes it as "the wrongful or fraudulent taking and carrying away by any person of the mere personal goods of another, with intent to convert them to the taker's own use, and make them his own property without the consent of the owner." The elements which compose this crime, and in the absence of any one of which it cannot exist-are 1st. the fraudulent taking, by an actual separation of the goods from the possession and control of the owner, with a fraudulent and felonious intent conceived and operating at the moment of the taking. If the first taking were not accompanied by such intent, no subsequent intention to cheat or defraud will make it Larceny. 2d. The carrying away, which is made out by any removal of the property from the custody of the owner, or from the place where it was deposited, however, slight the change of place may be. 3d. The thing taken must be a personal chattel-under which our law now includes not only money and goods, but almost every species of written contract for the payment of money, or having a pecuniary value. Things attached to real estate such as grass, timber and the like, are not the subjects of Larceny, unless before the taking, they have been severed from the soil or realty--which makes them personal chattels. The wrongfui taking of animals naturally wild and still unreclaimed, is not Larceny, because the law does not recognise them as property. So of dogs and other animals kept for mere pleasure, because although a species of property may be held in them, they are yet regarded as of no intrinsic value. Fourthly-The taking must be against, or at least without the consent of the owner. It is in settling this point of consent, that the great difficulties of the Law of Larceny have arisen. The Common Law from which we derive most of our definitions and distinctions of crime, bad its origin at a period, when the state of society was less refined-and the motives, pursuits, and mu. tual relations of individuals less complicated and artificial than at the present day. In those times, direct, undisguised force, was the agent generally relied upon for the perpetration of crime-and hence almost every common law definition of an offence, looks to that force as a ne

in every department, and in none more emphatically than in the tactics and appliances of habitual dishonesty. It was not long therefore, before a class of cases, intruded themselves on the notice of Courts, in which the moral taint, and the felonious intention of the crime of Larceny seemed to be present-but where the chattel in question having changed hands by the apparent if not the actual consent of the owner, he being deceived by false representations or pretences, the letter of the Common Law definition could not include them. It is matter for regret, that upon the first occurrence of such a case, the aid of the Legislature was not invoked, and some fixed provisions obtained, to amend the Common Law and adapt it to the altered exigencies of justice. The want of such assistance, and the anxiety of courts to prevent artful offenders from evading punishment, led them into the doctrine of constructive force, or more properly, induced them to construe the consent of the owner when fraudulently obtained, as in legal contemplation no consent at all. The first step of this kind involved no great violence of construction, and was therefore adopted with little apprehension for its conse. quences; but as the Courts gradually advanced from case to case-tempted in each instance by a laudable zeal for the ends of justice, they departed further and further from the letter of their authority, until original principles were lost amidst subtle distinctions, until in fact, the legal boundary between felony and fraud, between larceny and breach of faith-became a vanishing line, which the Jury must fix in each particular case, accord, ing to their own abstract notions of moral guilt or of an offender's demerits.

Thus stood the law of larceny in Pennsylvania, until about three years ago when the case of the Commonwealth against Lewers, was removed by writ of error from this Court into the Supreme Court. The late venerable and learned Chief Justice, entered upon the subject, with that singleness of purpose, with that freedom from the shackles of prejudice or false precedent, which rendered his services so inestimably valuable, and he laid down a rule, by which Courts and Juries must in future be restrained, with a clearness that cannot be mistaken and yet with a caution that avoids the appearance of sudden change. The rule is, that where the owuer of goods parts with the possession for a particular purpose, and the person who receives possession avowedly for that purpose, has a fraudulent intention to make use of the possession as the means of converting the goods to his own use, and does so convert them, it is Felony. But where the owner at the time of parting with the possession, means also to part with the property, to confer the dominion, the absolute control-no matter by what fradulent contrivances he may have been induced to do so, it is no Larceny, it is at most but a cheat. To this simple rule we have nothing to addexcept an assertion from the same venerated authority, that it extends the law of Felony, quite as far as is consistent with safety, and that Courts are bound inflexibly to res st all additional extension.

It is usual for our Conrts when speaking of the offence of keeping a Tippling House, to explain to the grand Jury, its evil influence on the peace and morals of the Community, and pausing to survey the melancholy traces of the progress of Intemperance, to draw thence an argument for additional vigilance in detecting offenders, and increased rigour in enforcing the Penalty. In doing so they discharge a most important duty, and they seldom fail to excite in the minds of the Grand Jury a corresponding zeal, for this branch of the public service. On the present occasion the subject will be viewed under an aspect somewhat different."

The act of January 1819, imposing a penalty of fifty dollars, upon the retailers of vinous or spirituous liquors,

The Criminal Code of this Commonwealth, even in infancy, was remarkable for its exemption from cruel and sanguinary enactments, as well as for the introduction of a system of discipline combining at once strictBut we are asked is not public opinion already array-ness and humanity, and guarding against the evils of idleed against the sin of Intemperance No: absolute drunk-ness by the novel introduction of labour into prisons, and enness-beastly intoxication is indeed universally re-by compelling the inmates to earn their maintenance

vised. While they acknowledge that failures have oc-
curred in some cases, the result is attributed not to the
system itself, but to obvious defects in its administration
and finally they challenge the production of an in-
stance where, with suitable precautions, the system has
not effected all that its advocates demanded.
Such are the sentiments of a large number of our most
respectable and intelligent citizens, whose long expe-
rience, valuable opportunities of observation, and un-
questioned benevolence of purpose, entitle them to
great influence over public opinion. Such are the doc-
trines whose correctness or error will be unanswerably
established, by the practical operation of the new Pen-
itentiary for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Can-
dor and courtesy to the advocates of the system-justice
to ourselves, to the reputation of the Commonwealth-
and to the whole class of culprits, equally require that
the experiment be fully, patiently, and impartially tried,
ing charge of the institution, should receive from public
sentiment that just and effective support; that kindness
of construction, both as to their motives and their ac-
tions, for which the wisest and the best, when strug-
gling with the difficulties of a new undertaking, have
constant occasion. For our own part we cherish a san-
will be eminently successful. We entertaiu no doubt
that it is a decided improvement on former practice; and
we believe that. though it should not realize immediate-
ly the expectations of it promoters, it must develope
so many latent springs, and afford such opportunities
of useful experiment, that our code of punishments may
finally be brought to a degree of perfection correspond-
ing with the advances this conntry has made in other
departments of government and law.

The signal advantages which arose from this measure at-ishment which the wisdom of the lawgiver has yet detracted great attention at a subsequent period, and caused its adoption in other communities. It was obvious, however, that the two great objects of all penal jurisprudence, the prevention of crime and the reformation of offenders, could not be accomplished while promiscuous intercourse among the convicts was allowed, an intercourse which divests punishment of its terrors, destroys every remnant of principle and of shame, precludes the hope of repentance or reformation, and reduces all the inmates of a prison to a common standard of incurable depravity. Humanity and policy alike demanded some alteration in a system which not only failed in suppressing offences, but was also the cause of a more wide-spread contamination. The necessity of a radical change was demonstrated to our citizens by the "Philadelphia Society for alleviating the miseries of Public Prisons," the first association established in Christendom for the benevolent and important purpose of ameliorating prison discipline.that the respectable and public spirited gentlemen havby their arguments the legislature abolished the system of promiscuous associations which had hitherto prevailed in the jail of this city, and for the purpose of more effectually separating the convicts, authorised the construction of cells in which to test the efficacy of solitary confinement. These and many other improvements then introduced, constituted the celebrated Pen-guine hope, that this change in our penal regulations itentiary System of Pennsylvania, the practical effects of which in diminishing offences attracted the notice of philanthropists in other states and in Europe, where our system was approved and imitated. After a few years, however, of unprecedented and astonishing success, this institution began gradually to decline, from the impossibility of enforcing the necessary discipline, in an edifice inadequate to the number of convicts it contained. The rapid decrease of its efficiency for some years past, has created alarm and led to inquiry. As a place of confinement it seems to have lost all its terror, and even to have been invested with some attractions, for the criminal and the dissolute. It has become a school of instruction for juvenile offenders, where every thing may be learned, from the first rudiments of vice to the highest point of perfection in crime. The convict leaves its walls, not only unreformed, but fixed in his determina-bench he has no pledge to give, but that which is retion ever after to depredate on that society whose inflictions have deprived him of all taste for honest industry, and obliterated every motiye to a virtuous life.

These miserable consequences are attributed not to mismanagement in the Inspectors or Keepers of the Penitentiary, but to that constant intercourse among prisoners by night and day, which, within an edifice of moderate extent crowded to excess with all kinds of culprits, cannot be avoided. It is thought, therefore, that a system of separate confinement, united with employment and religious instruction, will go far to reach the root of the evil-that the contamination of bad precept, and bad example will be prevented—that shame and remorse, unchecked by ridicule, may produce repentance -that even stern impenitence may yield to the voice of kindness, and the precepts of religion when they fall in whispers on the solitude of a dungeon-that those in whose hearts no reform may be effected, will yet be induced to amend their conduct, by durable impressions of the severity of punishment-and that the sufferings and example of all, will be a general warning to deter others from imitating their offences.

The Court, gentlemen, having now concluded their remarks, the individual who has spoken as their organ, begs leave to add a single observation.

He has felt strongly the embarrassment of his situa tion to day, and would gladly have omitted the business of instructing others, while he himself, as to the practice of his office, is yet a pupil. For his conduct on this

corded in his oath of fidelity to the Constitution and the Law. If he has formed resolutions for the government of his conduct-if he has erected for himself a standard of excellence, or a mark for ambition, let their character be judged by the fruits they may produce. If among these fruits shall be numbered an industrious and upright discharge of duty-a resolute disregard of all consequences merely personal -patience in hearing and caution in deciding-courtesy to the bar, and becom ing deference to the opinion of his associates-though he may have established no title to praise-he will claim indulgence at the hands of the public.

INFANT SCHOOLS.

The attention of the public is invited to the following statement of facts relative to the Infant School Society of the city of Philadelphia. This Society was organized in May 1827. Since that period, three schools for white, and one for coloured children, have been opened, and are now under its care. Several hundred infants are daily gathered into these nurseries of virtue. It is preThese theoretical opinions in favour of the "Pennsyl-sumed to be unnecessary at this time to descant on the vania System of Prison Discipline,' are supported, as merits of this charity; a visit to these schools, and an exits advocates allege, by that unerring test of the value of amination of the system of instruction there adopted, all institutions, long and varied experience. They aver will not fail to recommend it to the patronage of those that the problem has been solved, not only in the closet who desire to see a moral, thinking people,rising around of the philanthropist, but in the existing discipline of them. The annual expense of each school is not less numerous prisons in various parts of Christendom-pris- than five hundred dollars, making an aggregate of two ons in which offenders of every age and of every degree thousand dollars. The number of annual subscribers to are confined, with the same unvarying result, a more ex- the general fund is three hundred and eighty-three, protensive reformation of the convict, and a more salutary ducing an annual income of $766 00 operation on Society, than has followed any other pun- Proceeds from stock, 58 48