The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-10-29
BALTIMORE.
MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1860

In our local columns Of Friday last, under the
heading of "a hard case, we referred TO the i'm
prisonment of a poor fellow named PATTEN, who
was committed to Jail, on the 22d of July last, as
witness against a notorious pckpocket named
WATKINS, and who is still incarcerated, while the
thief who robbed him is out on bail, with the
freedom of the town Our reporter confined him
self to the naked recital of the facts-only adding
that tsome people think it is pretty near time this
case was called for trial. The indefatigable
States Attorney naturally enough supposng that
every allusion to dereliction of duty is meant for
him, and not often having case that will bear
explanation, jumped at the opportunity to call the
Courts attention, on Saturday, to the ''item. -
He stated in effect, that the indictment was found
on the 18th September; the called for trial on
the 18th; postponed to the Goth. and then removed
on affidavit He did not deny that the injured
man was in Jail, while the rogue was out nor that
the case was hard one, nor that it was still I'M
tried. He was satisfied with endeavoring to clear
his own skirts. His Honor, Judge BOND, how
ever, was not by any means so emperately dis
posed. He doubted 'wheher any man in the
community ever thought of the case (which he
seemed 10 think was conclusive evidence that there
could be nothing wrong in it. He, nevertheless,
recoected the facts very welP' himself and pro-
ceeded to state them. He then
chopped that Mr. WHITNEY hereafter would not notice
any newspaper articles; they almost all of them
and the present was not an experimentation by
who showed utter ignorance of the true facts in the
matter. When it appeared thai the Court and States
Attorney could manage the affairs of the Court they
would resign their positions and let somebody else under
take their duties"
Mr. n
respond to this portion of the Judges forcibe re.
marks. He "replied that he desired 10 make no
general comments in regard to the case he sim
''ply desired to set it in its true position before
the public" Upon the probabilities of his resig-
nation he prudently abstained from committing
himself, though we think he might safely have
agreed to tender it TO a delighted constituency,
whenever his Honor should set him the example.
We have neither time nor space TO withdraw
from grave topics, for special comment upon the
characteristic exhibition which Judge BoNp saw
fit 10 make of himself in the latter part of the re-
marks Just quoted. An enlightened gentleman
who thinks that newspaper articles are likely to
come TO au end because he and Mr.. WHITNEY
make up their minds not to ''notce' them; and
that Judge and States Attorney are to be left to
manage the affairs of the Court" without an oc-
casonal exposure of the way in which their man.
agement is carried on-certainly belongs to
another, though possibly not better age of the
world. But our business is with the official con-
duct of the functionaries in question, and not
with their foolish speeches to each other and
about themselves. In pursuance of that bust
ness we desire to make an enquiry of his Honor
and the States Attorney in this connection. If
the case of WATKINS could be brought TO per-
emptoyy hearing or removal in eleven days. by
the simple process of imprisoning the witness and
having him ready to testify, we desire TO know
why LEVY 5 case has not been brought to the same
result by the same process? If friendless and
unknown stranger, like PATTEN, could be impri-
soned for three months, merely as witness, we
should like to be able to inform our readers why
the well known and perfectly accessible witnesses
against LEVY could not have been imprisoned also
for three weeks, or even three days. A little ex-
PLANTATION upon these points will materially improve
the "true position before the public of both the
Judge and the prosecutor. "Some people think
it monstrous and utterly disgraceul to both these
functionaries, that a murder case should be
banded about from week 10 week, and finally
postponed, with every chance of an ultimate and
forced trial, in the absence of important Witnesses
when mere pickpocket whose political relations
with the Judge and the Attorney have been less
close, can be had up in rice, and his unfortunate
victim can be kept locked up to prosecute him
These are "fac.s" about which we insist that
there is no cutter ignorance" on the part of the
newspapers or the public, and although we will
not say they show that the Judge and States
Attorney Fcould not manage the affairs of the
Court" they demonstrate very clearly mode Of
managing them which suggests-let us inform his
Honor-to good many persons besides ourselves,
the propriety of Selling the first lawful oppor-
tunity to ''let somebody else undertake their
duties.n
We have gone into this affair of PATTEN's good
deal more extensively than the observations of
Mr.. WHITNEY and Judge BOND deserve in them
selves, for the reason that it gives an oppor-
tunity of presenting, in yet another point
of view, matter upon which we have
already dwelt repeatedly and with great
earnestness, but which cannot be too often
or too seriously pressed upon the attention of the
public and especially of the Grand Jury. We re-
fer again to the barefaced and audacous misfea
sance in office, committed by Mr.. WHITNEY last
June, in the dismissal of the indictment against
GREGORY BARRETT, for a riot at the l4th ward
polls at the last November election. Over and
over, during the last two months, we have dwelt
upon the insolent enormity of Mr.. WHITNEY s con.
duct in that case. We have stated the facts
openly and fully, and have charged on Mr.. WHIT
NEY by name the crime of which they demonstrate
bn has hoe o,ilf w cd
the name of public justice and decency, for his
removal because of that offence, from the office
which, under the Constitution, it dSqualfes him
from holding. And yet although in WATKINS
case-upon a mere i1timation in a local item, that
there had been unnecessary delay in bringing it to
trial-he deemed it due to himself, Though the
item did not mention his name) to get the Court
to help him to vndcate his 'Eposition''-uot one
word has he ever ventured to say in defence, or
explanation, or palliation of the misdemeanor,
which we have so publicly and directly charged
home upon him in the BARRETT matter. Now this
silence must signify something. IF an intima-
ton, in local item in this journal, is worth an
swering in open Court, deliberate, grave edi-
toral accusation of crime is certainly not less
If an imputation of mere delay negligence
needs public and official explanation a charge of
wilful malfeasance in office ought not surely to
be passed over. Why is it then that Mr.. WHIT
NEY holds his peace about the BARRETT case and
Judge BOND has nothing to say for him? There
can be but one answer, and that is-there is moth
ing to be said.
But our sense of obligation as journalists, does
not permit US to rest here. We regard the vindi-
cation of public justice, by the removal of Mr.
WHITNEY, rs absolutely essential TO the re-estab-
lishmeut of efficiency and purity in the admins
tration of the criminal law in Baltimore We
regard his conduct in the BARRETT case, as
fragrant and ostentatous malyersation in hi
Office. Let, therefore, the Court, the Grand
Jury, and our brethren of the press, act as they
may, in the premises, the path of duty is per-
fectly plain to us, and intend to pursue it. In
order, therefore, that there may be no misunder
standing as to the facts the conclusions which
they justify, we shall re-state the whole case upon
our responsibility. r
On November 20, 1859, the Grand Jury present.
ed GREGORY BARRETT and ANDREW MCGUNNIGAN,
with others to the Jurors unknown, for ''riot and
dsorderly conduct and for intimidation and pre-
vention of voters from approaching the polls by
firing pistols and BY other lawless acts" on No
Der ID, 1859 The witnesses named on the pre-