The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-01-27

Our readers must have been astounded-if in
deed anything from that source could astound
them-upon reading the report, in Yesterdays
EXCHANGE, of the expressions used on Tuesday in
the Criminal Court, by Judge STUMP, in reference
to the case of FORD and the decision of the Court
of Appeals in regard thereto. He is reported, and
we believe with entire accuracy, to have declared
that che was of opinion the Court of Appeals had
emo power to convey to his Court any Jurisdiction;
''Ford had been arraigned once on the charge, and
chad fair and impartial trial, and was convicted
'lfthe Court of Appeals set that verdict aside they
"might try FORD themselves. The
Court would decide the question of new trial in
dependent of the Court of Appeals The
"Court thinks that it will discharge the prisoner,
land then it can be impeached if it has done
"wrong"
The alternative presented in the last sentence
certainly offers strong temptation to all good
citizens to desire that FORD should be at once set
free, even at the expense of public justice and the
risk to the community of having one more cut
throat let loose upon it. Any thing-no matter
how outrageous-which would have the result of
causing Judge STUMP to be impeached and ex-
PEELED ANONYMOUSLY from the station which he
disgraces, could almost be welcomed with ioy by
this patient and long-enduring people. Disreputable
as his exhibitions from time to time have been
more damaging ten-fold to the public morals than
the very crimes upon which he sits in mockery of
Judgment-ths last exhibition of his insensibility
to every duty and decency of his station, is
enough to overflow the cup of public disgust and
Indignation. If Judge STUMP knows any thing
hot roft l,,+, III
charge, he cannot be ignorant of the fact that he
IS absolutely bound by the judgment of the Court
OF Appeals, how widely soever it may differ from
his own, and that the opinion of that tribunal def
niuveiy expressed is so far binding upon him in
law and conscience, that he cannot wilfully dis
regard 1t without criminal violation of his oath
OF Office and total overthrow of the respect which
is due from subordinate 10 a superior tribunal
ABOUT this he can make no mistake 1t is the first
letter in the alphabet of judicial education If he
does not know it, he is ipso /acto unit remain a
moment longer where he is. If he is aware of it.
as we must presume he fully is, there is no mea-
sure of language within the scope of decorous COM
ment which would half express any good citizens
opinion of his deserts. Is is bad enough to see the
law trodden daily under foot by violence. It is
enough to see fraud and connivance creeping into
places of public trust. But the deliberate and
avowed determination of tribunal of the law to
overthrow the law-of a court of justice to defeat
justice-passes the limits of federation and makes
forbearance public wrong.
Nor, in this comment upon the language of
Judge STUMP is it proper to overlook, altogether,
the remarks of Mr.. States Attorney WHITNEY,
which introduced the subject That officer is re-
ported to have suggested that the Court of Appeals
had decided that "a verdict of murder in the first
degree, duly recorded, was not sufficient to sus-
tain the Judgment of the Criminal Court Now,
MIR. WHITNEY knew very well that the Court of
Appeals could not possibly have decided any such
thing. lie was perfectly aware that the very
question before the Court of Appeals was, whether
such a verdict as he spoke of had been re-
corded and "duly recorded" If he had
chosen to wait until he had seen the opin-
Ion OF the Appellate Court he would have
seen that its decision was placed on the ex-
press ground that no record of such a verdict had
been "duly' made. His remark was, therefore a
very improper expression of his own pique at
having been overruled by the Appellate Court, and
although, of course, not open to the animadver-
sion which Judge STUMP so highly merits and has
so universally received, was altogether unworthy
an officer of the law whose first duty is to respect
the law and the decisions of its constituted tri-
bunals
SO far as we can learn, the decision of the
Court of Appeals meets the concurrence of the le
gal profession. The Statute required the Jury to
ascertain by their verdict the degree of homicide
which they found, and it is quite plain from the
evidence that they did not so ascertain it. and that
proper entry to that effect was made at the time
The verdict, therefore, was no verdict. The trial
was mis-trial, which is no trial, and cannot be
pleaded as former trial, when the prisoner shall
De put upon trial anew All these are plain
matters of every day legal principle The only
thing In dispute was the question whether the YER
dict had been properly rendered and recorded
That question settled the rest follows as matter
OF course-and Judge STUMp's scruples as to the
unconstitutionaty of trying the prisoner again.
would be simply ridiculous, if they were not
worse
The truth is, the difficulty ought never TO have
occurred. IfMr. WHITNEY was prevented from be-
ing present as is alleged by his indisposion, after
the argument of the case, he ought to have been
represented by proper deputy If he was not,
the Court ought to have seen that the verdict Was
properly taken. If the Court was not informed of
its duty, or in condition to discharge it, the Clerk
should have been intelligent enough to take the
verdict and enter it properly, without the assist
ance OF any one. There was incompetency or neg
lect somewhere and the result has been the neces-
slty OF setting aside righteous verdict as nulli-
ty. Yet the forms of the law must be preserved,
and it is right Judgment which maintains them.
The responsibility is On those whose derelic-
ton of duty has brought the retribution of the
law to naught.