The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-09-16


of Baltimore, he endeavors to defend himself
against the serious charge (among others of
having sanctioned the taking of Zone ERASMUS
'LEvY'' as bail 'for JOSHUA MULLEYn He de-
MES, as will be remembered, that he gave the or
der in the case, asserting that it was written and
signed by his partner, in his absence and stead.
He is so well satisfied, however, with what was
DONE that he ''fully endorses it as his own ac-
ton, and upon two grounds-frst because the
amount of the bail was fixed by the Court; and
secondly, because LEVY had 'justifed under the
'rule of Court" and shown himself to be worth
three times the amount required. Under such cir
cumstances, there was, he says, no alternative
las no power on earth, under the provisions of the
Constitution, had any discretion in the matter,
''or right to refuse bail" Mr. WHITNEY, official
and professional opinion stands therefore, solemn
ly ana publicly recorded, TO the effect, that if
party accused tenders, as his BAIL any individual
whatever, no matter how abandoned his char
acter, who is worth the amount required
neither the Court any one else con EARTH has
the right, under the Constitution to refuse the bail
offered. Neither the Prosecutor nor the Judge
has "any discretion in the matter" This is Mr..
WHITNEY's doctrine, deliberately promulgated
as the law of the State and the rule
of his office, as late as September
18th, 1852 and it is under cover of the prin-
clple and practice so announced that he ventures
to defend one of the most disgracefu acts that
could bring the administration of Justice to
shame.
On yesterday, as will be seen by our local re-
port one of the propretors of this paper appeared
at the bar of the Criminal Court, to offer bail TO
answer charge initiated against him by the
Grand Jury. The bail demanded was 81, OoO
and the security offered was that of his counsel
S. 7. WALLIS and JOHN H. THOMAS, Esos. I'M
mediately upon the offer being made, Mr. WHIT
NEY not being present, his Deputy, FREDERICK
PINKNEY, Esq, rose and said, that of course there
could be no objection to the sufficiency of the
security, but that there was rule of Court for
bidding the taking of attorneys as bail, and he
therefore must object to the acceptance of the
bail offered. Judge STUMP replied that there was
such rule, certainly, and he meant to observe it.
and rejected the bail forthwith. The accused
was, of course, compelled to leave the Court in
search of other security, which fortunately was
close at hand, and was accepted, after due ques-
tioning.
AT this precise moment, there are obvious rea-
sons of propriety which prevent us from com.
menting upon the matter last referred to, excep+
in the single point of view in which it con-
Germs the public. Whether there is such rule,
as that relied on by Mr.. PINKNEY, is merely mat
ter OF opinion and memory as between counsel
the extraordinary fact being, that the Court has
no written rules whatever that the Clerk has
been able to find, after diligent search, since his
official term began But if such rule does exist,
it interests the public to know how Mr.. WHITNEY,
or any one acting for him, can venture to invoke
1t, In the face of the recorded opinion to which he
has officially pledged himself as we have shown,
IN his address to the public. If emo power on
'earth, under the provisions of the Constitution.
"has any discretion in the matter, or any right
Ito refuse ball." when the security offered is
pecunlarily suffcient-where does he find the
right or the "discreton" to exclude. in
advance, whole class of the community from
being offered as bail, even though their pecuniary
sufficiency and personal character, when they are
offered, are admitted to be beyond cavi? If the
Court has no shadow of power to exclude ruff
fans, because they are ruffians-where does
1t find the authority con earth" to exclude
lawyers, because of their being lawyers? IT,
on the other hand, the Court has the "riqht. and
the "discretion," by its mere unwritten rule.
passed or adopted at pleasure, to refuse a whole
profession as ball. and the States Attorney feels it
his duty, personally or by his deputy, to enforce
that rule, when the bail offered is ample and unex
ceptionable-how comes it that he not only
does not feel it to be his duty, but solemnly
repudiates the right to act on a similar
principle in case where public decency and i'm
perious justice unanswerably demand its applica-
ton? Are ruflians and outlaws the only class of
the community against which the Criminal Court
can not pass, and the STATES ATTORNEY has
no right to press the operation of restrictive rules
Was the Constitution adopted, and were the laws
enacted to secure immunties only to the worst men
that live under them? These questions answer
themselves, and they likewise sufficiently answer
Mr. WHITNEY address to the people They estab-
fish, beyond the possibility of controversy, one of
two things-either that he had the ''right," and
was bound to exercise the 'discreton" of refusing
to sanction and endorse the taking of LEVY as
bail, in the one case-or that in asking the Court
by his deputy, TO refuse the bail offered yesterday,
he invoked fright and set in operation a
discretion" which, if he is a man of truth, ''no
power on earth under the provisions of the
Constitution can lawfully assert, in Maryland