(orally). The grand jury of this court was impaneled on the 1st day of August of the present July term. The respondent was drawn as a member of that body. He was impaneled, after being examined as to bis qualifications, to serve as a juror, and was thereupon sworn in this court by the clerk; the clerk first administering the oath to the foreman of the jury in this form:

This same oath, taken by the foreman of the grand jury, was administered by the clerk to all the other members of the body. After the oath had been administered to the grand jury, the court proceeded to instruct the members as to their duty, and, among other things, instructed the jury, particularly:

In other words, the instructions of the court were, specifically, that the lips of the jurors were absolutely sealed respecting every matter that might come before the body in the course of its proceedings. It is not for a juror to disclose any secrets of the body of which he is a member, or reveal anything concerning any matter brought before the jury, nor is it the province of the juror to privately interview witnesses, or to approach witnesses wlm have been before the jury, concerning their testimony, outside of the jury room. The instructions, in this respect, were full and specific.

On the 7th of this month the following affidavit was presented to this court:

This affidavit tended to show, not only that Mr. Summerhayes had violated his oath, but that he had been guilty of contempt of court, in misbehaving as a juror in revealing the proceedings of the grand jury and also in discussing matters which had been brought before that body.

On that affidavit the court issued a citation, requiring the respondent to appear here this mprning and show cause why he should not be punished for contempt of court. He appeared, and through counsel asked that the witnesses in support of the affidavit might be produced for cross-examination. Pursuant to this request, the witnesses in support of the charges contained in the affidavit were placed on the witness stand and examined as to the matters referred to in the affidavit. Mr. Freeman testified substantially as set forth in the affidavit. ■ He was then cross-examined by counsel for the respondent. Mr. Church, his attorney, was called, and requested to state what occurred on the occasion mentioned in the affidavit. He did so, and confirmed the testimony of Mr. Freeman, in its principal features. He was cross-examined by counsel for respondent. Mr. Seidenberg, a reporter for a morning paper, was also called to testify to certain admissions said to have been made by Mr. Summerhayes at his house on the night of the Cth of TSTovember, concerning the same matter. He, also, was cross-examined by counsel for the respondent. The respondent then went upon the stand and testified as to what occurred on this'occasion. He has controverted or denied some portions of the testimony delivered by the witnesses in support of the charges contained in the affidavit.

With respect to such portions of that affidavit as charge, or tend to charge, corrupt conduct, it probably involves offenses against the laws of the United States. If so, these matters must be tried elsewhere and by other methods of procedure than that which is now appropriate in this proceeding for contempt. When a person *773 is charged with the commission of a crime against the United states, he is entitled to have the matter investigated by the grand jury, and, if indicted, to be tried by a jury of his peers. It is not for the court to determine the questions of fact involved in a public offense, or the issues of fact presented in such matters. If the tendency of respondent’s conversation with Mr. Freeman was in respect to a violation of law, — if it was for the purpose of opening up negotiations leading to bribery and corruption, — that is a matter that should be investigated by the grand jury, and presented to the court in proper form for trial by a jury. The court has only to deal now with the question of contempt, — to determine whether the orders of this court and the laws governing their enforcement have been violated by the respondent.

Section 725 of the Revised Statutes provides:

It will be observed that contempt of court may be committed— First, by the misbehavior of a juror in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice; secondly, a contempt of court may be committed by a disobedience of a juror to a lawful command of the court. The oath taken by the respondent and the command given to him by the court was that the counsel of himself and his fellows he should keep secret; or, in other words, that he should not communicate with persons outside of the jury room with respect to any matter under investigation by the grand jury. The law and instructions of the court in this respect were not obscure, and there is no reason why a person should be in doubt as to tlieir command. It is one of the inheritances we have as an English-speaking people, coming down through the long channels of the common law, to respect and sustain the sanctity of the jury room and the secrecy of the procedure of investigation provided fox* grand jurors. Indeed, the integrity of proceedings in criminal cases depends almost entirely upon the jurors confining themselves- to the investigation of only such matters and things as they have received from the court, or from the district attorney, in the grand jury room, and through regular channels. 1 For a juror to receive documents or papers, or anything pertaining to a case, outside of the jury room, is not only clearly in violation of his oath, but it is contrary to the principles of our jurisprudence and the whole system of law we are called upon to administer. If jurors may leave the jury room and privately obtain evidence elsewhere, if the jury can he dismissed *774 from a court or jury room, and the individual members be permitted to interview parties or witnesses outside of the jury room, the courts may as well close their doors, and let the administration of justice fall into the hands of those who will deal in it as an article of personal favor or purchasable merchandise. But this is a government of law, and we are charged to execute the law, and to see that it is preserved in all its integrity, and so conduct all the proceedings that not a breath of suspicion should ever properly attach to any verdict or judgment, and when we forget to insist upon all the safeguards that belong to proceedings in courts of law, we must not be surprised to find our form of government under the law á subject of ridicule and derision; indeed, it may not stand the strain of distrust that accompanies irregularity and corruption in the administration of justice.

The court appreciates the unfortunate position of the respondent in this case, as stated by his counsel. He comes here, undoubtedly, with the credit of a reputable citizen. He has borne, heretofore, so far as I know, a good reputation. But he has certainly disobeyed the order of the court. He ought to have thought of his good reputation when confronted with the situation, as it appears here presented to the court by the testimony. He ought not to have approached these men. He ought not to have allowed himself to come in contact with them, or to discuss with them the proceedings of the grand jury, even to the extent he admits. While I am not now considering anything further than the mere fact of the respondent having disobeyed the order of the court, still there clings about the aifair the atmosphere of wrong, — serious wrong. There is, I am afraid, something more than the mere disobedience of the order of the court. It is said by counsel that all there was to it was indiscretion, and it has been characterized as though the conduct of the .respondent was a matter of possible thoughtlessness. That is not the case. The case cannot bo disposed of in that way. It is .a serious matter. It must be considered that there was some reason for this juror having a conversation in a public billiard room with Freeman and Church, covering the long time stated in the testimony. It cannot be disposed of as a passing conversation. I think that, while the testimony in this case has been brought to my attention orally, and has not been left to be disposed of by the affidavits of the persons who had knowledge of the facts and the answer of the respondent, I am permitted, under the rules governing the examination of such a case, to determine whether or not the story of the respondent is consistent with the situation. I am bound to say that, from all the statements, I do not think his story is consistent with all the circumstances of the case, even as admitted by himself. The meeting of these persons in a public billiard room, and the claim that the respondent was merely talking to a Mr. Buelnnan indirectly, and in a formal way, about the case; before the grand jury, does not seem to be in accord with the situation of affairs. I am now speaking of the case as presented by the respondent himself, disregarding the statements of Mr. Freeman and Mr. Church. The respondent’s own statement of the situation is not sufficient to account for the *775 interview, or the color he gives to it. I think it is a serious offense. I think it is one of the gravest offenses that has been committed in this district against the regular and proper administration of the law. The respondent must be punished, and I think he ought to be punished severely.

The sentence of the court is that he be imprisoned for the term of six months,'and that this imprisonment be executed in the county, jail of San Francisco.

A grand jury of the United States does not possess the inquisitorial powers conferred by statute upon state grand juries. Charge to Grand Jury, 2 Sawy. 671 .