The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-07-04

nesdav morning.
We took occasion a few days ago to comment
nnon the entire abnegation on the part of the au-
tborties of one of the most obvious and ordinary
dpties of police force-that of preventing crime
We say on the part of the authorities for TO them
and MOTTO the individual members of the force were
our structures applicable The duty of police
man is simply to obey orders, and only in case of
disobedence or neglect of the general regulations
prescribed for the government of the force, is he
Justly chargeable.
He can no more select his own sphere of duty,
than he can choose his own beat, or designate the
hours at which he is willing to be employed on
duty. What he has never been told to do, that
we do not expect him TO do, and beyond that gen.
eral sort Of surveillance which every policeman
must necessarily exercise, who faithfully goes his
rounds, the duty Of watching suspected and lawless
persons for the purpose of preventing them from
engaging in the commission of crime, has never
been impressed upon him, part of the service re-
CURED at his hands Indeed, it is service of such
special and peculiar character, that no merely gen.
era regulations would suffice to secure its efficient
performance An Executive Head must determine
alike the occasions on which, and the extent to
which Surveillance may be required, as well as the
particular individuals over whom it shall be exer-
cised, and what members or portion of the force
shall he detailed for the purpose. All this is clear
~ within the province of Mr.. SwANN's authority
and duties, and this, if anything, was what, we
presumed he meant to do, when he ''placed HIM
'sef at the head of the police" and made himself
directly responsible for its shortcomings and def
ciencies Theperect ease with which such system
of Surveillance could be established in this city, we
endeavored to show in the article already referred
10, while gifts necessity, if any further demonstra-
tion be needed, we have it in the very plea urged
by The Am~icaR and others, for the purpose of
proving that the city authorities are not response
bic for the present condition of things. The pc
lice arrest-say these habitual apologists for Mr..
SwANN-but the Court aud magistrates fail TO pun
ish. Theirs, therefore, is the blame-not his
Does it not occur TO these quibbers, that the very
fact upon which they rely, and which we do not
for one moment pretend to deny, ought TO admon.
sh Mr.. SWAMI Of the necessity of taking more eff
cient measures for the prevention of crime, since
the chance Of adequate punishment being inflicted
IS so small? In the absence of that moral dread
which the certainty of punishment always inspires
and which undoubtedly is the most effectual means
for the prevention of crime, may not the same OBJ
Ject be measurably accomplished by the display of
that physical force which Mr.. SWAMI has, at all
tines, at his command? Is it not Mr.. SWAMI s
duty at all events to make the experiment?
Even as regards the incompetency and dishones-
ty of the magistrates, we are by no means clear
that Mr.. SWAMI is excused thereby, at least to the
extent that his apologists pretend. 1t certainly
cannot be that all the magistrates are equally dis
hone~t and incapable, and as it resides entirely in
Mr.. SWANS discretion to say before whom the
police shall take persons whom they arrest for
examination, it is clearly in his power to avail
himself of the services Of the best in the COM
munity. Nor have we any apprehension but that
rigid determination on his part to hold the magis-
trates, whom he appoints to hear cases at the Sta
ton Houses, and over whom he possesses therefore
certain measure of control-to a strict perform
ancc Of their duties would soon produce CORES
ponding and salutary effect.
When we come TO consider the case of the Crimi-
nal Court however, and its share of blame.
We confess, that it is quite a different question.
Over the Judge Of that Court, the MAYOR IN
doubtedy has no control-no more. unhannilv
nave common decency and the ordinary restraints
OF judicial decorum, nor even the planest princi.
pies of law. Upon the indecency of this Judges
conduct in FoRD's case, lately removed bv him to
Anne Arundel county for trial, in the face of an
express decision of the Court of Appeals that Anne
Aruhuel county Is not an adjoining jurisdiction
10 Baltimore city, and that such removal is nm
authorized we have already sufficiently commant-
co. Ills decision IN the lottery cases if less obvi
ously IN contempt of the highest judicial authority
IN the State Is certainly not less plainly in contra
dlctlon OF the planest letter of the law The
Constitution (articeV VII, section s. expressly saws.
"From and after the first day of Anri o;,b,oon
"hundred and fifty nine no lottery scheme shall ho
''drawn, for any purpose whatever, nor shah ann,
'4ottery ticket be sold in this State"
Yet because no penalty is prescribed for tbe vim
lation of this express provision of the Constitution
and the Legislature have neglected to provide ono
and because the Acts of Assembly which punish with
fine and Imprisonment the sale of foreign lottery
tickets in this State purport, in their titles to he
made for the purpose of preventing ''frauds upon
'the revenue" and because the State no longer de-
rives revenue from Lotteries, and therefore. has
not the same pecuniary interest in the matter
Judge STUMP has gravely decided that the selling
of lottery tickets in this city, though unlawful, j:
not punishable Can any greater outrage than
this, upon the common sense and common honesty
of the community, be imagined? We do not pro-
pose to enter into any detailed examination of the
grounds of this extraordinary decision of Judge
STUMP. We simply mean to say that-apart from
the fact that it has been expressly determined that
the title of an Act Of Assembly cannot be resorted
TO for the purpose of limiting or contravening its
provisions, or even of explaining them except
when the act is otherwise contradictory or unintel-
Iigible-no principle of law is better settled than
that for every offence there is penalty, and that
if the law which defines the offence itself imnose
no penalty, it is a mSdemeanor, and punishable nv
fine and imprisonment. If this be true. as the
Court Of Appeals have recently and positively
determined in the case of the License aws-in case
of the violation of laws, which are made under the
Constitution-whyno in case of a violation of the
itotii, WHICH Is Inc HlpneSI law OF The
State? Judge STUMP has decided diferentIy-nol
is 1t possible, as suggested by The Anerican, tina
his error (if in so plain case, error it can be
called) can be corrected by the Court of Appeals
even if it were at all likely that he would show any
greater respect for the judgment of that Court, in
such event. than he has manifested for its ruling in
FoRDs case. In calling upon Mr.. WHITNEY to
take the Lottery Of The State u.s. CLARK up on
appeal, our contemporary must certainly have for
got'en, or failed to observe that the traverser in
that case elected to be tried before the Court in
stead OF Jury, and that the Judgment of the Court
was, therefore, as final and conclusive of the ones
ton submitted, as would have been the verdict OF
Jury. AS any other person arrested and indict-
ed for the same offence would certainly elect 70
be tried in the same way there is no chance Of
putting stop to the sale of lottery tickets in Balti-
more, while Judge STUMP remains upon tba
Bench or until the Legislature shall supply the
imaginary defects of the Constitutional provision
and so satisfy the scruples of that usually not over
scrupulous Judge.
Even in this respect, however, we hope our case
is not altogether remedies. The Thrtieth Arti-
Gle of the Declaration ofRights, declares that the
'tndependency and uprightness of Judges are es-
sentia to the impartial administration of Justice
land great security to the rights and liberties of
'the people, wherefore the Judges shall not be re-