The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1858-03-29

|
Editors Daily Erchanye:
GENTLEMEN The independent stand which your
paper has taken in reference to the notorious NAL
administration non-enIorcemcnt of QUE Criminal
Code merits and receives the hearty thanks of the
respectable portion of the community. 1t is useless
to deal in general complaints of existing evils with
out designating either the source from which they
spring or the appropriate remedy by which they
may be corrected, and it is therefore hoped that
you will persevere in your efforts to trace up the
grievances, which are fast becoming ntolerable to
their proper sources let the blame fall! where it
may.
In aid of your efforts, would respectfully sug-
gest that you call the public attention to matter
IN which custom has rendered one of the best pro
visions of the law utterly nugatory. In this are
involved two points. The first is the dercclion of
duty on the part of judicial officers who admit par
ties charged with offences to ball. without satisfy
ing themselves of the suflciency or the response
bllity OF the sureties they accept. On this do not
now propose to comment, my object being to bring
10 notice the second point to which alludc and to
endeavor to elicit information as to the officer who
is properly responsible for neglect of duty which
Is iranght with evil consequences to the community
Inc prevention of crime is universally admitted
to be not less the object of wise legislation than its
| punishment With this view all Judges and magis-
trates, having criminal jurisdiction in this State
and every where else where the English common
Ia" prevails, nave the power in every brought
before them, where party is charged with breach
oil the peace, and is not committed to JAIL to re-
Pue security for the keeping of the peace in flu
lure. Normally, this power is freely exercised as
Is daly shown by the reports of magistrates pro
ceedngs 1t is equally notorious, that party thus
discharged ON security, is again arrested sometimes
within twenty-four hours for another breach of the
peace Is again discharged on security to keep it,;
ana the same farce is played over and over again,
10 the disgust of all right-thinking citizens. until
| we have walking at large in streets offenders
who have thus forfeited recognzance alter recon-
nlzance with the most entire and absolute impu-
nifty.
Now has any one ever heard of any attempt to
indicate the majesty of the law by enforcing the
penalty OF these violated obligations? 1t is true
| that Id many cases the suretes upon them bv the
culpable remissness of the officers who take them
are Irresponsible but does that absolve the princi-
pal offender? Can nothing be done with him2 The
| EFFORT might at least be made, and if the law
De found not to have made sufficient provision for
| such cases. then let the law be amended. But the
question ises, which it is the sole object of this
communication to bring to notice. whose fault is it,
that recognizances to keep the peace, however fla
GRAVITY and repeatedly violated are thus suffered
to sleep in oblivion? Is the magistrate who takes
them, bound by law, to make them matter of re
cord, to keep them in his possession, or ia
make return of them to the Criminal Court? |.
the bounden duty of the Magistrate, of the States
Attorney, or of the Judge of the Criminal Court
officially to inquire into the fact of any violation
otthem which may come under his own knowledge
or OF which he may be credbly informed? Is it the
duty OF Police officers and Constables under their
oath of office, to take notice of these matters, and
to act in them? These questions your correspond
ent is unable to answer, and He submits them
through your columns in the hope that from some
competent quarter the public may receive that in
formation which he knows would be very accepta-
bic To many Others as well as to