The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-12-14
BALTIMORE.
WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER IA, 1855

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER IA, 1858
We publish, among the Court Proceedings OF
Yesterday the opinion delivered by His Honor
Judge STUMP in the matter of the Contested EIec-
ton for STATES ATTORNEY of the City of Baltimore
As was anticpated-nay, as was very we'll known
would be the case, His Honor dismissed the Pc
titon of Mr.. THOMAS, summarily, without waiting
for proof, and directed Mr.. WHITNEY 10 be sworn
in at once. Unless, therefore, the Legislature
should interfere, some other Proyidentia inter-
position prevent the pleasant association between
Judge and Prosecutor, which has blessed our
community so long, is likely TO continue through
several joyous and profitable years to come We
are not disposed to quarrel with His Honor's ac-
ton, in its merely personal bearing, for one good
turn certainly deserves another, and the rati6ca-
ton of Mr.. WHlTNEY's election to the place which
he usurps, is but proper acknowledgment of the
bountjtul goodness, with which Mr.. WHITNEY has
allowed His Honor to continue in the seat which
he disgraces. 1t is, to be sure, an interchange of
civilites, in which there is, perhaps on both sides
little more of grace than conscience, but pract-
cal people have long since ceased to expect from the
high iunctonares in question any sentimentalsm
on the of official oaths or public duty and are
sposed to be rather agreeably disappointed, when
they pay to public opinion the decent respect of
gong through the forms. Perhaps, on the whole,
there is in Mr. WHITNEYs recognition by Judge
STUMP poetical justice, which would not have
been so well administered by his rejection. If to
be honored by those who are themselves honored,
be the most welcome need of praise-surely TO be
cherished by those whom no one honors must
have the bitterest flavor of reprobation. Judge
STUMP thought there was but the difference of one
days imprisonment and fine of fifty cents
betH cen the Express rioters and decent men.
Between Mr.. WHITNEY and the properest of per-
sons he sees no difference whatever.
Upon that portion of Judge STUMP's opinion
which is intended TO present legal and profess.
lonal aspect, we do not propose an extended COM
ment So far understand it, His Honor
appears to have based his judgment upon two
principal grounds-frst, that he has no means
of ascertaining whether the facts charged by Mr.
THOMAS are true; and secondly, that even if they
are true they furnish no sufficient reason for set
ting aside the returns. In support of the first
view, he suggests that he cannot by any mode
of proof ascertain the intentions of the voters.
who, Mr.. THOMAS alleges, would have voted for
him, if they had been allowed In support
of the second, ne says, that if the intentions
of such voters could be ascertained it would be
mere intention, after all, and, in his Judgment,
the defeating such good intentions, though by
force and fraud, would be no sufficient reason for
pronouncing an election null. A man, he thinks.
has no right to contest an election unless he is
prepared to say that he received a majority of the
votes polled and as Mr.. THOMAS has not ventured
to assert that he did receive such majority, but
only AYERS that he would have received il, if the
force and fraud of Mr.. WHITNEY, friends had not
prevented Mr.. THOMAS, he is firmly persuaded,
has no standing in Court. 'NIr. WHITNEY,"
therefore, twill now come before the Court here
"and take the oath of offcel" To add little
Latin, after the manner Of His Honor, we can only
say "Quod erat demonstrandum"
We confess that the ludicrous faulty and
puerility Of the logic and the conclusion would be
difficult to resist a matter of humor, if there
were not graver and sadder issues behind Even
the familiar spectacle of judicial mbeciliy and
generalization cannot accustom us to regard their
exhibition without shame and sorrow The Con-
stitution under which Judge STUMP is sworn to
act, provides, in language which cannot be mis-
understood, that all elections for STATES ATTORNEY
in this city, shall he certified TO the Criminal Court
''whose duty it shall be TO decide upon the cleo.
''tion and qualifications of the persons returned"
If Mr.. WHITNEY is "a person returned'-then, be-
yond peradventure, it is the bounden "duty" Of
Judge STUMP 'tto decide upon'' his detection and
qualifications" If Mr.. WHITNEY was not elect
ed, Judge STUMP is bound 10 say So whether any
one else was elected or not. 1t cannot make Mr..
WnlTsEY's election lawful, to say that Mr..
THOMAS was not elected either, and Judge STUMP
therefore travels directly out of the path of his
sworn and obvious obligation, when he pretends
to say that he cannot reject candidate fosted on
the people by fraudulent and roous minority,
simply because no one else received the votes of n
majority. The very statement Of the proposition
reduces ii at once 10 an absurdity. The Court is
not commissioned to try question of conflicting
private right 1t is commanded to discharge a
lofty and important public duty. 1t is not called
on merely to say which of three candidates was
elected, hut to judge whether the 'election and
qualifications" of either candidate enttle him to
VIZ VI diipOiHlcu ny TIE
Consiitu ion This manifest and imperative
direction Judge STUMP has openly refused
TO follow. lie has declared, in effect and
almost in words, that he is bound to
accept, as the elected candidate whoever
is returned 10 him as such, unless some one
else can prove better title According to his
theory, somebody must have been elected, when
ever there was an election held, and if it was not
the second or third man it must have been the
first. Such Thing as no election at all is beyond
the limit of his comprehension. Such thing as
fraud or violence closing the ballot boxes is in
his contemplation not possibility What differ
ence does it make if three-ourths of the town were
driven from the polls? How can he tell in what
way they would have voted if they had not
been excluded? Nay, if every body had been
driven away, and the returns were pure in
vention and fabrication, what business has he to
look into that, unless somebody has better lie to
tell, in place of the lie first told? Yet this is the
law, and without appeal-decided by the only
Court having jurisdiction Of the subject Under
such law we are to live, while the dynasty that re-
quires and the JUDGE who pronounces it rule over
rs. Is it not simple supererogaton to be circu-
lating memorials for the removal of Judge STUMP,
If the members of the Legislature read the news
papers?