power to administer oaths and affirmations to witnesses appearing before the grand jury."2 "No indictments shall be found, nor shall any presentment be made, without the concurrence of at least twelve grand jurors.'' 3 The organization is not vitiated because the jurors are sworn and impanelled the day before that fixed by the court for their appearance. The jurors must be duly sworn, except those who have conscientious scruples against taking an oath, and they must take an affirmation to do their duty.5 The record must show this fact. The usual oath requires a grand juror diligently to inquire and true presentment make of all such matters and things as are given him in charge; to present no one for envy, hatred or malice; to leave no one unpresented for fear, favor, or affection, reward, or hope of reward; to keep secret the counsel of the United States, his fellows and his own.7 An objection upon the ground that the grand jury was illegally constituted, when not merely technical, may be taken at any time before the arraignment.8 The indictment should be endorsed "a true bill" by the foreman, and must be publicly presented in open court, the proper 2 Ibid., § 283, re-enacting U. S. R. S., § 809. 3 U. S. R. S., § 1021. 4 U. S. v. Lewis, 192 Fed. 633. 6 Burchett v. U. S., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 821. 6 Burchett v. U. S., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 821. A recital in the indictment that the grand jury was duly selected and sworn is sufficient. Powers v. U. S., 223 U. S. 303, 56 L. ed. 448; Burchett v. U. S., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 821. Where the record showed that all the grand jurors were duly sworn, except one, "who was duly affirmed;" it was held, that the indictment should not be quashed, although it did not affirmatively appear that such grand ju ror possessed conscientious scruples against taking oath. Bram v. U. S., 168 U. S. 532, 42 L. ed. 568. 7 Atwell v. U. S., C. C. A., 17 Fed. Prac. Vol. III-35 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1049, 162 Fed. 97, 99. "It may well be said that the first three obligations of this oath relate to the positive duty required of the grand juror, while the latter relates to and defines the rule of conduct to be followed by him in the discharge of these positive duties. The first three are demanded by direct mandate of the law; the latter only by its policy, and solely in order that the first three may be the more thoroughly and effectively performed. The first three obligations are absolutely required by the law, to be laid by oath upon the conscience of the juror; the latter may be omitted, as in some courts is done, and supplied by instructions given by the court." Ibid. 8 U. S. v. Haskell, 169 Fed. 449. 9 See U. S. v. Breese, 172 Fed. 765. practice being for the grand jury to be present and answer to their names, whereupon the indictment is delivered by the foreman to the clerk and the fact entered of record; 10 but, an indictment is not void because the grand jury do not accompany the foreman to the court-room when they are in session in an adjoining room with the door opening into the same opened so that they can see the actions of their representative." Where an indictment has been regularly returned into open court, it will be presumed that the grand jury and the officials therewith connected discharged their respective duties with reference to the same.12 The grand jury can meet and adjourn of its own motion, in the absence of an order of the court, until its discharge and may lawfully proceed in the performance of its duties whether the court is in session or not.13 The final adjournment of the court for the term for which the jury is impanelled discharges the grand jury.14 The absence of one or more grand jurors, by reason of a failure to notify them of a meeting at which an indictment was found, was held not to be sufficient to invalidate the indictment, when there were present a sufficient number.15 It was further held that the improper discharge of a grand juror would not vitiate an indictment if the necessary number remained.16 "A court shows no punctilious respect for the Constitution in regulating their conduct. We took the institution as we found it in our English inheritance, and he best serves the Constitution who most faithfully follows its historical significance, not he who by a verbál pedantry tries a priori to formulate its limitations and its extent." 17 10 Renigar v. U. S., C. C. A., 26L. R. A. (N. S.) 683, 172 Fed. 646. A paper which purports to be an indictment, endorsed as "'a true bill' by the foreman of a Grand Jury and delivered by him alone to the clerk when the court is not in session, was held not to be an indictment and to confer no jurisdiction upon the court to try the accused. Ibid. 11 Breese v. U. S., 226 U. S. 1, 57 L. ed. 97; affirming 172 Fed. 765. 12 Carlisle v. U. S., C. C. A., 194 Fed. 827. 13 Jones v. U. S., C. C. A., 162 Fed. 417. 14 Jones v. U. S., C. C. A., 162 Fed. 417. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Re Kittle, 180 Fed. 946, per Learned Hand, J. A preliminary complaint is not essential to the validity of an indictment 18 or of a subpoena ad testificandum or duces tecum. 19 A grand jury has inquisitorial powers of the broadest nature.20 It has the right to make investigations and to find indictments and presentments, of its own motion, as well as to consider the bills laid before it by the District Attorney.21 It may consider ' a complaint presented by one of its own members,22 although it seems proper that he should take no part in its deliberations thereupon; 23 it may consider a complaint which was rejected by a previous grand jury.24 The proceedings of the grand jury are secret; but it has been held not to be a contempt of court for a grand juror, after an indictment has been found and he has been discharged, to disclose the testimony upon which he acted.25 No one has the right to be present during an investigation by the grand jury; 26 except the witness when under examination,27 the District Attorney of the United States for the district,28 one of his duly appointed assistants,29 his clerk,30 a stenographer,31 an interpreter,82 the Attorney General,33 an officer of the De 18 U. S. v. Lewis, 192 Fed. 633; U. S. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 225 Fed. 301; U. S. v. Thompson, 251 U. S. 407, 413. 19 Norcross v. U. S., C. C. A., 209 Fed. 13. 20 U. S. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 225 Fed. 301. 21 Frisbie v. U. S., 157 U. S. 160, 163. 22 Elder v. U. S., C. C. A., 243 Fed. 84. See § 493a, supra, 23 Ibid. 24 U. S. v. Thompson, 251 U. S. 407, 413. 25 Atwell v. U. S., C. C. A., 17 L. R. A. (N. 8.) 1049, 162 Fed. 97; reversing Re Atwell, 140 Fed. 368; U. S. v. Perlman, 247 Fed. 138. 26 U. S. v. Farrington, 5 Fed. 343; U. S. v. Kilpatrick, 16 Fed. 765, 774; U. S. v. Edgerton, 80 Fed. 374; U. S. v. Rosenthal, 121 Fed. 862; U. S. V. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 163 Fed. 66. 27 U. S. v. Farrington, 5 Fed. 343; U. S. v. Edgerton, 80 Fed. 374. 28 U. S. v. Reed, 2 Blatchf. 435, Fed. Cas. No. 16,134; U. S. v. Rosenthal, 121 Fed. 862. 29 U. S. v. Reed, 2 Blatchf. 435, 455, Fed. Cas. No. 16,134; U. S. v. Rockefeller, 221 Fed. 462. 30 U. S. v. Reed, 2 Blatchf. 454, 455, Fed. Cas. No. 16,134; U. S. v. Rockefeller, 221 Fed. 462. 31 State v. Brewster, 70 Vermont, 341; U. S. v. Rockefeller, 221 Fed. 462; U. S.. Haskel, 169 Fed. 449; Wilson v. U. S., C. C. A., 229 Fed. 344; U. S. v. Rubin, 218 Fed. 245. Contra, U. S. v. Philadelphia & R. Ry. Co., 221 Fed. 683; Latham v. U. S., C. C. A., 226 Fed. 420. 32 Case of Norberg, 4 Mass. 81; Opinion of Justices June, 1919, Mass. -. 33 Act of June 30, 1906, ch. 3935, 34 St. at L. 816, Comp. St., § 534. partment of Justice,34 or any attorney specially appointed by the Attorney General under any provision of law when thereunto specifically directed by the Attorney General,35 even when not a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of the State or of the United States, if a member of the County Bar; 86 and none of these has a right to be present during the deliberations of the grand jury, after the testimony is closed.87 But, in the latter case, it was held that the presence of the District Attorney at that time was an irregularity, which, when there was no proof of its injury or prejudice to the defendant, should be disregarded.38 By the Act of June 30, 1906, the Attorney General or any officer of the Department of Justice, or any attorney or counsellor specially appointed by the Attorney General under any provision of law, may, when thereunto specifically directed by the Attorney General, conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceed. ings before committing magistrates, which District Attorneys now are or hereafter may be by law authorized to conduct, whether or not he or they be residents of the district in which such proceeding is brought.39 This authorizes two or more such attorneys, especially appointed and designated by the Attorney General, to be present together in a grand jury room, although one of them acts as a stenographer.40 But it does not permit the presence of an expert accountant.41 Such an appointment may be signed by an Assistant Attorney General who will then be pre the examination of the witnesses. U. S. v. Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., 163 Fed. 66. Before its enactment, it was held that the presence of a special assistant to the Attorney General; U. S. v. Rosenthal, 121 Fed. 862; U. S. v. VirginiaCarolina Chemical Co., 163 Fed. 66; or an examiner of the Department of Justice, was improper. U. S. v. Kilpatrick, 16 Fed. 765, 774. 40 U. S. v. Haskell, 169 Fed. 449. 41 U. S. v. Heinze, 177 Fed. 770. sumed to have acted under the authority of his chief.42 It is the better practice for the Attorney especially appointed to present to the court certified copies of his appointment and oath of office, and to file these in the clerk's office before acting.43 It has been held that the presence, after their examination, of an expert witness, or of an attorney for private prosecutors, who subsequently read documents and minutes of testimony previously taken and made comments thereupon,45 is ground for setting aside an indictment. The District Attorney or other representative of the Department of Justice may place the evidence before the grand jury, examine witnesses, summarize the evidence before them and state that he desires an indictment.46 If he goes beyond this, and even if he remains during the deliberations of the grand jury 48 it has been held that the indictment cannot be quashed unless it appears that his conduct was prejudicial to the accused. One whose acts are being investigated by the grand jury has no right to appear before them unless requested, nor to present evidence either oral or written.50 A subpoena may direct the attendance of witnesses before the grand jury alone or before both the grand jury and the petit jury as well.51 When it summons witnesses before the grand jury, it should disclose the name of the person against whom the inquiry is instituted or the subject of the investigation.52 A witness properly subpoenaed cannot refuse to testify before a grand jury upon the ground that there is no cause or specific charge pending.53 It has been said that the evidence which shall be received before a grand jury is not subject to judicial control, that the proceedings before a grand jury are no 42 May v. U. S, C. C. A., 236 Fed. 495. 48 May v. U. S., C. C. A., 236 Fed. 495. 44 U. S. v. Edgerton, 80 Fed. 374. 45 U. S. v. Farrington, 5 Fed. 343. 46 U. S. v. Rintelen, 235 Fed. 787. 47 Ibid. 48 U. S. v. Terry, 39 Fed. 355. 40 U. S. v. Bolles et al., 209 Fed. 50 Ibid. 51 Re Shaw, 172 Fed. 520. 53 Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, |