The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-12-10

We invite the attention of cur readers to the
proceedings of the Criminal Court of Saturday
last We have often been compelled to comment
upon the strange fashion in which justice is ad-
ministered in that tribunal but we do not know
that we have had occasion lately to notice q more
disreputable incident than that to which We now
refer. The Grand Jury having thought proper to
present the STATE ATTORNEY for malteasance in
office, it became the duty Of the Court to appoint
some one to prepare the necessary indictments and
to try the case on behalf of the State. On Satur-
day Mr.. WHITNEY, through his counsel, Mr.. PGTTs,
expressed his readiness to meet the charges pre-
ierred against him, and requested the CoURT to
select at once some member of the bar to conduct
the prosecution. Mr.. PTNKNEY, who for number
of years past has acted as the Deputy of the
STATES ATTORNEY, took occasion to give the
CoURT the benefit of his opinions about the case,
the conduct of the Grand Jury and the innocence of
MI. WHITNEY. He pronounced the presentments in
question to be "wid and ''vague;" he stigmatized
the action of the Grand Jury as 'persecution;''
and he announced his determination to resign his
position rather than consent to draw the requisite
indictments. more unbecomng and insolent
disregard of all the prophecies of the place, and
the rights of the public, has-we take the liberty
of saying seldom, if ever been witnessed, even
in the Criminal Court. Judge BOND had no more
business to tolerate Mr.. PIYKNEY's harangue than
the latter had to make it. The Grand Jury had
acted strictly within the sphere of its duty, and
the Court was bound to see that it was
treated with respect; and there are, we
hope, few Judges in this State-whether
hailing from city or county-who would have
permitted presentment Of the Grand Inquest
TO be thus contemptuously derided at the bar
Judge BOND must surely have imagined, when he
countenanced so unfair and outrageous proceed
ing, that he was only discharging his sworn duty
at an election precinct. But whatever license might
have been allowed an acknowledged representative
Of the State, accorded to the counsel of the ac-
cused party, it is clear that Mr.. PINKYEY had no
right whatsoever 10 interpose between the Grand
Jury and the States Attorney. He had no au-
thorlty to speak for the State; for, notwithsand-
ing his remark about 'resigning his position, - it
Is well known fact that he holds no office about
the Criminal Court which the Constitution or laws
recognize, and has no legal claim to the salary he
enjoys. Moreover, his personal relations with Mr.
once to the Court the obvious proprety of prevent
ing him from drawing the Indictment even if he
had been willing to do so; and still less should he
have been allowed to declaim in open Court
against the Grand Jury, and to deny the validity
Of lis presentmens, and so to influence the public
mind in favor of Mr.. WHITNEY.
Whether these presentments are $50 vague" that
it would be impossible for any one to ''draw in
'dlctments upon them,' it is not proper for us
now to discuss. But we do say that. if the
Grand Jury hare overlooked the more DAM
aging and indefensible acts of Mr. WHITNEY, and
have arraigned him upon those charges only to
which he can oppose the most plausible defences,
Or have framed their accusations with insufficient
clearness and precision, it is because they have
been deprived of such legal advice and assistance
as similar bodies usually have access to. Nav
more, the officers Of the Criminal Court have
apparently set themselves to work TO counterfeit
any effort that might be made 10 call the States
Attorney TO account Judge BOND seems to have
devoted himself assduously to this task When
it was generally supposed that the Grand Jury had
Mr.. WHTTNEY's delinquences under consideration,
the Court lectured them for having, as itsupposed
sought legal advice from outside sources, and on
another occasion, it counselled them pretty plainly
to adjourn. 1t is currently reported too, that it
was through Judge Bonds evidence that Mr. WHIT
NEY was enabled to escape responsibility for his
atrocous conduct in the acquittal of BARRETT IT,
therefore, the Grand Jury have failed to make out
strong case, or indeed dozen of them, it is not
altogether their fault, and any errors they have
made can be even now corrected when Judge
BOND shall furnish them with competent legal ad-
wiser But upon the present proceedings we for
bear further comment. We leave the matter to
be settled in that tribunal where public opinion
sits as arbiter, and where Mr.. WHITNEY and Mr..
PINkNEY can only exercise such small influence as
either of them may legitimately have acquired.