Charge to Grand Jury. ant, and you report that-cither by your clerk or your foreman-to the district attorney, and he prepares an indictment that is submitted to your foreman, and he signs it upon the back as a "true bill." I suggest to you, gentlemen, it is entirely proper that you visit your jail and ascertain its sanitary condition. This court cannot control the jails of the island, as that is the business of the insular authorities; but if a jail is not in fit condition to confine United States prisoners, then I will send them somewhere else. The court would not let a man-even a prisoner-be confined in a place not fit for human habitation. The court expects of each grand jury man independence of thought. I expect each grand juryman to have his own opinion about a matter; but in the investigation of offenses, as there is a body of you, you should try to reconcile your opinions as best you can. Whilst there are sixteen of you, you should try as near as possible to act as a body as far as you conscientiously can do so. If you differ as to the testimony and the case, you should talk it over; and if you can, you should reconcile your differences and come to a conclusion. Gentlemen, I think of nothing else at present. If your foreman or anyone of you think of anything else, the court will give you the information if he can. By the foreman: Shall we select a clerk from our body, or someone from outside? The Court: One of your body must be clerk. I say to you further, gentlemen, that you are the judges of the credibility of all the witnesses that are brought before you. It will be your duty, if you believe that any witness has sworn falsely, to report him to me, and then the court will give you further instructions. Gentlemen, the marshal will show you to your room and furnish you with ink, paper, etc. Re Garnishment of Pay. IN RE GARNISHMENT OF PAY OF MEMBER OF LEGISLATURE. 1. A garnishment against one as an individual, and not as a governmental disbursing officer, does not stop disbursement of the money. 2. A disbursing officer of the government is not subject to garnishment. Public money in his hands cannot be attached. Garnishment of government funds is contrary to public policy. February 20, 1903. Mr. H. E. Smith for complainant. HOLT, Judge, delivered the following opinion: This is a garnishment of the per diem allowance of one Nadal, a member of the legislature of Porto Rico, in the suit of H. E. Smith against him. The garnishment, however, is against Charles H. Magee, Esq., individually, and not against him as disbursing officer of the legislative assembly. In any event, Garnishment. As to person or property subject to garnishment, see the following editorial notes: Property in custody of law, note to Dunsmoor v. Furstenfeldt, 12 L. R. A. 508; Money due from receiver, note to Irwin v. McKechnie, 26 L. R. A. 218; Garnishment of debt after delivery of check in payment, note to National Park Bank v. Levy Bros. 19 L. R. A. 475; Officer or agent of a corporation for purpose of securing denın aqinst corporation, note to Mayo v. Milwaukee Amusement Co. 36 L. R. A. 561; Liability of county to garnishment, note to Washington ex rel. Summerfield v. Tyler, 37 L. R. A. 207; Liability of carriers to garnishment. note to Stevenot v. Koch, 28 L. R. A. 600; Garnishment of executor or administrator, note to Hudson v. Wilber, 47 L. R. A. 345. Re Garnishment of Pay. therefore, it does not stop the payment of the salary by Mr. Magee as an official. He can truthfully respond in the suit that he owes Mr. Nadal nothing; that is, unless in fact he owes him individually. The garnishment is without effect as to him as a public officer. In addition it may be said that a disbursing officer of the government is not subject to garnishment. As long as it remains in his hands it is as much the money of the government as if it were still in its treasury, and cannot be attached. Until paid to the person entitled to it, it cannot, in a legal sense, be construed as part of his effects. There is another reason, however, and a potent one, why it cannot be done. If a creditor of one official can attach what may be payable to him by the government, the creditors of all the other officials may do so, and, in effect, paralyze the government. It would certainly be embarrassing, and might prove fatal to the public service. It might be done, for instance, as to the pay of our officers and men of the Army and Navy. This would be detrimental to the public service. Equally so would it be as to the members of the legislature. No government, therefore, can sanction it. There are numerous state decisions upon the question; but the Supreme Court of the United States passed upon it in the case of Buchanan v. Alexander, 4 How. 20, 11 L. ed. 857. Article 1449 of the Law of Civil Procedure of Porto Rico seems to have recognized the right to do so to a certain extent; but, in my judgment, it is contrary to public policy, and therefore not allowable. It is not in accord with the spirit of American government and the rule in force under it. Individual inconvenience or loss may sometimes arise; but this is not so serious as public inconvenience and the arrest of governmental proceeding. United States v. Cutler. UNITED STATES v. WILLIAM G. CUTLER. POWERS OF UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER-RELATION OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY TO UNITED STATES COMMISSIONER. 1. The duties of United States commissioners were at first limited to taking acknowledgments and bail. Now he is a magistrate vested with authority to hear preliminary investigations of charges of crime, and to discharge or bail the accused. A district attorney cannot control his action so as to prevent the investigation by him of a criminal charge, no more than he can control the action of a grand jury. 2. To hold a defendant or his bondsmen liable, however, when told by the district attorney he need not appear, would be harsh and unjust, where there was no wilful default, and no indictment found by the grand jury. May 25, 1904. HOLT, Judge, delivered the following opinion: The defendant, Wm. G. Cutler, was, on March 7th, 1904, brought before Joseph Anderson, Jr., United States commissioner of this court, charged with committing an assault upon certain parties, at a place within the admiralty jurisdiction of the court. The preliminary investigation was continued until March 8th, 1904, and the defendant, Cutler, gave bond in the sum of $500 for his appearance before said commissioner, at said time, with F. M. Welty as his surety. The latter is described in the body of the bond as the representative of the United States v. Cutler. American Colonial Bank; but this must be regarded as merely descriptive of the person, as he signed the bond individually. It recites that the defendant, Cutler, would abide by the order of the commissioner, and not depart from the district without leave; otherwise, the bond would remain in full force. March 8th, 1904, the investigation was continued until April 11th, 1904, which was the first day of the April, 1904, term of this court, and when a grand jury would be and was convened to consider offenses. Said Cutler then failed to appear, and the commissioner, on April 12th, 1904, certified the matter to the court, asking that a scire facias issue against the surety to show cause why he should not pay the amount of the bond, and also asking that the court order the rearrest of the defendant, Cutler. The court thereupon referred the matter to the district attorney for a statement by him; and he thereupon filed one; to wit, that the defendant, Cutler, being an officer of the Navy, had, on April 6th, 1904, notified him of a cable order from the Navy Department ordering him to proceed at once to a point in the United States; and the hearing of the case having been continued until the day when the grand jury would meet, and knowing the facts of the case, and having determined it inadvisable to present it to the grand jury, he notified the defendant that he would not further prosecute it; that he might obey the naval order; and that, as his leaving was not voluntary or to avoid his bond, it would not be estreated. The court has no doubt the district attorney and the commissioner have both acted conscientiously, and as they deemed best and right for the interest of the government; and the question is now presented, what action the court should take upon this state of case. The office of commissioner was first created by the act of |