The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-10-26
BALTIMORE.
Tuesday, OCTOBER &c. 1858.

thot the accused cannot have "a fair and Impair
tiol trial" in the jurisdiction where the indictment
has been found. This is evil, for which the
Constitution and laws are exclusively responsible,
and over which the officers of justice, however
well disposed, can exercise no direct control. 1t
isnevertheess grievous and a growing evil, and
ii behooves the community for its own protection,
to bring to bear upon the members of the legal
professionally whose hands the remedy lies
the influence of a salutary and decided public
opinion.
The privilege of removing causes, both civil and
criminal, from the tribunals in which they may be
pending, is one so obviously necessary, at times,
to the impartial administration of the law, that no
judicial system would be tolerable withoutit. All
communities are liable to temporary excitements,
and even permanent prejudices. Individuals will
occasionally become the mark of public displeasure
or anmosity So, at particular seasons particu-
lar offences may provoke an undue amount of pub
lie vindictiveness. Local interests may likewise
intervene-potical, sectional, and even religious
strfes, may disturb the calm waters of justice.
Every one can readily conceive how often such
cases may arise, in the mutations of opinion I'M
der popular government, and how indispensable
it is that the fundamental law should provide for
them in advance. Under the old Constitution of
Maryland, such provision was very broadly made,
and after the act of 1909, commonly called the
'Penitentary Act" the privilege of removing
cases was absolutely secured to every party who
was prepared 10 swear rlrot he cn,,la -
fair and impartial trial'' in the Court where the
record was In the Counties, this unrestrained
81 a1xy
tie abused but the facilities of escape offered to
criminals from this city, by the less frequent terms
of the County Courts the greater eniency of County
uries and the chance of the absence of witnesses,
furnished temptation which could not be resisted
by class of people, TO whom "a fair and impair
tia trial. was the most undesirable thing in the
world. 1t grew therefore to be part of the
established tactics of the most desperate often
ders, to make the oath required by law, and
remove their cases from the City Court, when
they could no longer postpone hearing. The evil
became insufferable, at last, that in 1910 it
found necessary to revive as to Baltimore City
Court an old law of 1905, which had been re-
pealed by the 'tPenitentary Act" and which
placed the allowance of removals, even after aft
davit, within the discretion of the Court. Such
was the state of the law when the present Consti-
tuition adopted the Fourth Article of which,
by its 29tn section, took away from the courts,
everywhere, all discretion upon the subject, and
restored to the parties the absolute power of re-
moval, upon sufficient affidavit made at the term
in which the issues are joined. Subsequent legis-
lation in conformity with the Constitution, has
extended its provisions still further, and at the
expense of slight supplementary oath, the re-
moval may be procured at any time before trial.
With the convenences thus afforded, the practice
is most simple and satisfactory to evil doors.
Cases continued, from term to term, as long as
may be- upon affidavit of the absence of material
witnesses, and when, at last, the Court and the
Prosecutor will bear it no longer the necessary a
davis for removal made, and the goes to the
County, where it frequently arrives in condition
to battle the energetic and vigorous prosecu-
ton of States Attorney, who knows how and
never fails to discharge his duty, before Court
which understands, and ably and faithfully adj
ministers the laws.
From this statement, it is quite obvious, as we
have said that the only practical remedy for the
gross and pernicous abuse in question, is in the
hands Of the members of the bar. In ninety
cases, out of every hundred removed, the oath
that the prisoner cannot obtain "a fair and impair
tal trial, is wilul deliberate and corrupt per-
jury-a crime committed for the express purpose
OF preventing the very result which the criminal !
falsely processes to desire and seek. The affidavit,
in almost all cases. is prepared by the counsel for
the prisoner, who, in a large majority of those
cases, must necessarily know that the client is
periuring himself and that they are assisting him
i'll doing so. 1t will not do to say that the client
makes the oath upon his own responsibility.
Every intelligent lawyer knows, perfectly well,
the difference between the honest convictions of
Client which he counsel, is bound to respect,
and will take the responsibility of respecting,
if he does not concur in them-and the false and
absurd declaration of pretended mistrust, which
is but part of the base tactics of fraudulent de-
fence. Every gentleman who respects himself, as
member of an honorable profession which he
respects Also would feel that he was committing a
Trevous offence against good morals, abusing his
trust, and bringing himself and his profession
INTO disrepute, if knowing these things, he should
permit himself to be used, by criminal, in the per-
petration of a second crime which is none the less
y
Of conviction and punishment. No man who
is fit to try case of petty larceny, can
honestly believe that his client is really unable, or
sincerely thinks himself unable, to have "a fair
md impartial trial' in the Criminal Court of this
city, upon charge of stealing pair of shoes, or
setting fire TO a stable, or knocking n man down
with slung-shot The pretence is too bald-the
whole thing too mere q farce-to be talked about,
and no counsel is fit to practice his profession, or
ought 10 be tolerated by decent people, who lends
or sells himself to such pettifogging iniquity. The
sooner the community comes to this conclusion,
and acts practically upon it. the better for the law,
for the bar, and for public justice. No citizens we
are quite sure would more rejoice to see the re-
sponsibty so thrown where it ought to rest, than
those members of the legal profession who repre-
sent its dignity its intelligence and its integrity,
and who enjoy, as they deserve, the respect and
confidence of the public. Unhappily, the bar has
no control over the admission of its members, and
no voice in their expulsion, if they disgrace their
calling. If they are let in by the courts without
intellectual or moral qualifications, and are allowed
10 practice, by the courts, after they have made
puoiic and disreputable demonstration of the alb |
sence OF both-as is certainly the case-it is not |
possible for the natural consequences to be avoided
IN large community, there is always a demand |
Tor dishonesty, and there will always be supply, |
While it pays All the vigilance of the tribunals
cannot prevent this principle from effecting the
employment and governing the conduct of some
among their offcers-but surely they can and they
Dound to do something towards restricting it, In
the present condition of the Criminal Court there
is, unfortunately, nothing 10 be expected from its
intervention on behalf of professional integrity
intelligence or decorum 1t is painful to reflect
to what extent the loss of dignity and selfrespect
npon the part of public tribunals themselves NAV
contribute to demoralize, not only the individuals
who live within their sphere, but even the whole
whose sense of right and decepcv thew
shock till it grows dull. All hone of chance
where such is the case, must depend exclusively
upon the formation and expression of sound public
opinion.
The foreign news by the latest mails nro,onts