Reynolds, 1 Utah, 226; Downs v. Com., 92 Ky. 605, 18 S. W. 526 ; Com. v. Salter, 2 Pears. (Pa.) 461; Com. v. Leisenring, 2 Pears. (Pa.) 466. A constitutional provision fixing the number of the panel and prescrib ing how many must concur is held to be self executing; Sanders v. Com. (Ky.) 18 S. W. 528; State v. Ah Jim, 9 Mont. 167, 23. Pac. 76.
The number of grand jurors varies in dif ferent states, as also the number or propor tion required for concurrence. In Utah fif teen grand jurors were held sufficient; Reyn olds v. U. S., 98 U. S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244; and see People v. Green, 1 Utah 11. When twenty-three were provided for, the provi sion was held to be directory merely; Cora. v. Wood, 2 Cush. (Mass.) 149.
Objections. An objection must be prop erly made as to time and manner; In re Wilson, 140 U. S. 575, 11 Sup. Ct. 870, 35 L. Ed. 513; Corn. v. Windish, 176 Pa. 167, 34 Atl. 1019; State v. Scarborough, 55 Md. 345; Young v. State, 6 Ohio, 435; State v. Pate, 67 Mo. 488 ; 2 Ad. & El. 236; 1 Nev. & P. 187. A person summoned to testify before the grand jury de facto cannot question its organization; Ex parte Haymond, 91 Cal. 545, 27 Pac. 859. An objection to the com petency of a grand juror must be raised be fore the general issue; State v. Easter, 30 Ohio St. 544, 27 Am. Rep. 478; Whart. Cr. Pl. 350. It has been held that an objec tion comes too late after the jury has been empanelled and sworn ; Com. v. Smith, 9 Mass. 110; People v. Jewett, 3 Wend. (N. Y.) 314; • but on this point the authorities are conflicting; see contra, State v. Davis, 12 R. I. 492, 34 Am. Rep. 704, n. The proper method of taking objection to the organi zation of a grand jury is by plea in abate ment; Falk v. Reese, 19 Ala. 240; Henning v. State, 106 Ind. 386, 6 N. E. 803, 7 N. E. 4, 55 Am. Rep. 756; Brown v. State, 13 Ark. 96; and not by demurrer ; Collier v. State, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 388; Fisber v. U. S., 1 Okl. 252, 31 Pac. 195; or motion to quash; State v. Haywood, 73 N. C. 437; Johnson v. Ins. Co., 3 Wyo. 140, 6 Pac. 729 ; or motion in arrest of judgment ; State v. Pile, 5 Ala. 72; or collaterally on habeas corpus; Ex parte War ris, 28 Fla. 371, 9 South. 718; State v. Noyes, 87 Wis. 340, 58 N. W. 386, 27 L. R. A. 776, 41 Am. St. Rep. 45. A plea in abatement must specify the objection with particularity; State v. Holcomb, 86 Mo. 371; Tilley v. Com monwealth, 89 Va. 136, 15 S. E. 526; New man v. State, 14 Wis. 394; Brennan v. Peo ple, 15 Ill. 511; State v. Skinner, 34 Kan. 256, 8 Pac. 420; Baldwin v. State, 12 Neb. 61, 10 N. W. 463. If a method of objection is prescribed by a statute,' it must be follow ed strictly; People v. FIooghkirk, 96 N. Y. 149 ; Boulo v. State, 51 Ala. 18; Johnson v, State, 33 Tex. 570; Williams v. State, 86 Ind. 400.
Federal courts may, on their own motion, enforce other objections to grand jurors than those prescribed by state statute; U. S.
v. Jones, 69 Fed. 973.
See an elaborate note upon the organiza tion of grand jury in which are collected the cases relating to defects of every kind in the summoning, organization, and pro ceedings of grand jury ; 27 L. R. A. 776 ; and one on the qualification of grand jurors; 28 id. 195 ; as to the number of grand jurors necessary or proper to act and the constitu tional and statutory provisions relating thereto in states which have changed the common-law rule, see 27 id. 846; and as to the number necessary to concur in finding an indictment ; 28 id. 33.
Proceedings. Being called into the jury box, they are usually permitted to select a foreman, whom the court appoints; but the court may exercise the right to nominate one for theta.
The foreman then takes the foiiowing oath or affirmation, namely: "You, A. B., as foreman of this inquest for the body of the -, of -, do swear (or affirm) that you will diligently Inquire, and true presentment make of all such articles matters, and things as shall be given you In charge, or otherwise come to your knowledge, touching the present service ; the commonwealth's counsel, your fellows', and your own, you shall keep secret ; you shall present no one for envy, hatred, or malice ; nor shall you leave any one unpresented for fear, favor, affection, hope of reward or gain, but shall present all things truly, as they come to your knowledge, according to the best of your under standing. So help you God." It will be perceived that this oath contains the substance of the duties of the grand jury. The foreman having been sworn or affirmed, the other grand jurors are sworn or affirmed according to this formula: "You and each of you do swear (or affirm) that the same oath (or affirmation) which your foreman has taken on his part, you and every one of you shall well and truly observe on your part." in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, 26 Sup. Ct. 370, 50 L. Ed. 652, Brown, J., quot ed from the grand juror's oath as given in 8 How. St. Tr. 759. He refers to the words "as of all other matters and things as shall come to your knowledge touching these present services," etc., as showing the competency of the grand jury to act solely on its own 'volition. It was there held that the grand jury might proceed either upon their own knowl edge or upon the examination of witnesses without a previous presentment or formal indictment being submitted to them. It was also held that the ex amination of a witness before a grand jury is a ' "proceeding" within the meaning of the proviso of the general appropriation act of 1903, that no per son shall be prosecuted on account of anything which he may testify in any proceeding under the anti-trust law. The authorities are collected at large in the opinion and arguments.