The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-10-15

to attend, and, if we mistake not occasionally at
tending himself the "Mayors Court,n That q
Magistrate has no right to refuse ball. and conse-
quently no right to detain prisoner, in bailable
case, when good and sufficient security is offered is
textbook law which Mr.. SWAMI should not have
needed to 60 to Mr.. WHITNEY to teach him.
lhat IN cases OF riot, however, for the purpose
OF preserving the public peace, parties engaged in
Its violation may be arrested and detained until the
riot is quelled, all immediate danger of a dis
turbance is passed, is equally trite and familiar
law, of which Mr.. WHITNEY cannot be, and Mr..
SWAMI ought not to be ignorant If two men are
hghtlng IN the street, and are separatedb by Magis-
trate, and tender bail-to say that it is the duty
OF the Magistrate to let them go-to renew the fight
it may be, in his very presence-and that he has
no other alternative but to arrest them again, and
again release them, it may be, with like result
is simple nonsense. The sole object of the extra
ordinary powers wherewith Justices are clothed, as
conservaors of the peace is to enable them to pre-
vent as well as suppress riot and tumut Inherent
to the office itself is the power to detain as well as
to arrest-for without the former the latter may
be we'll nigh nugatory. Arrest ITSELF as the word
denotes, is species of detention-of longer or
shorter duration, according to circumstances-pro-
onged or otherwise, according to the exigences Of
the case and the discretion of the officer making or
ordering the arrest. By virtue of this power there
fore, Mr.. SWAMI might easily have detained, had
he so chosen, 'until the closing the rolls," those
whose presence and conduct at the polls were
constant source of disorder and confusion, and
whose release from custody invariably led to re-
newed breaches of the peace IT. howeVer,-ac-
cording to his own estimate of his powers,-the
right of the MAYOR to arrest and detain persons
engaged in violating the peace, until the motive
and opportunity for so doing shall have passed,
admits of little doubt-that of the SHERIFF will be
questioned by no one. The question which Mr..
SWAMI asks with respect to the SHERIFF authority
is hardly less disingenuous than that which he
propounds in reference to his own. He asks:
so. Whether the Sheriff. by virtue of office, may
exercise power superior to that of the Mayor in deain
ing prisoners arrested and held in custody9'
And Mr.. WHITNEY replies
"With regard to the second inquiry, whether the Sheriff.
by virtue of his Office may exercise power superior
that of the Mayor in OBTAINING prisoners arrested and
held in custody" answer at in the negative and
say that he possesses such powers whatsoever The
Act of 1885, ch 137 makes the City responsible for dam
ages by riot which its authorities do not Suppress and
this to confer an exclusive authority in the CITY
Officers and certainly excludes any paramount authority
in the Sheriff"
In reference to the foregoing we can only say that
nobody ever suggested that the SHERIFF had "pow-
Ger superior to that of the MAYOR in OBTAINING
''prisoners arrested and held in custody" The
SHERIFF's power in the premises is simply that of
Conservator of the Peace. As such, he can ar
rest and commit, but not hold to bail. The May
OR, on the contrary, is Conservator of the Peace,
if at all, by virtue of being Justice As such,
he can examine and hold to bail, as we'll as arrest
and commit. Had Mr.. SWAMI therefore, honest
ly desired to preserve the peace on Wednesday
last, and 'to exercise an authority for that pur
pose, 'about which there could be no doubt
the SHERIFF would have been the proper officer
to call uponhis obligations being strictly limited
to the preservation of the peace and his power to
the arrest and detention of persons engaged in its
violation. The suggestion of Mr.. WHITNEY that
the Act Of 1885, ch 1871, affects the powers of the
SHERIFF in any shape, is merely puere. That act
is not limited in its application to the city of Bal
tmore. 1t applies expressly and in terms to every
county, incorporated town and city in the State.
Each and all of them are made irresponsible for
damages by riot which the authorities do not
it seems to confer exclusive authority on the city
"oficers''-it must amount to a total abrogation
of all authority on the part of the SHERIFF, as
conservator of the peace, throughout the State
1t cannot have a wider range here than elsewhere
According to Mr. WHITNEY's opinion, the SHERIFF
is simply an officer charged with the duty of
serving the process of the Courts. Indeed, we are
not sure that according to his view-it does not
follow that the preservation Of the peace and the
suppression of riots in this city, being purely q
matter of municipal concern-he, as Il prosecu-
ting officer Of the State of Maryland can
have nothing TO do with the investigation
and punishment of such offences happening
in our midst, and that he is bound to leave
both to the getty Government" But we
have given space enough to the consideration of
an opinion which, if honestly entertained reflects
| as little credit upon the legal requirements and
professional acumen of Mr.. WHITNEY, as his Off
cia career has done upon the office which he holds
and the community which he serves We can
only say that if this is the best excuse which Mr..
SWAMI can offer for his utter and shameless dere-
LECTION of duty on Wednesday last he is, indeed,
without apology. Not charity itself-nor the plea
of 'the best intentions in the world"-can excuse
man who, holding high official station, and
clothed with weighty responsibilities, so egregious
ly mistakes the powers of the one and the obliga-
| tions of the other