The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-10-18

| the instant the energy Of the Criminal Court is
relaxed, we cannot render more acceptable service
! to the public than by bringing prominently for
ward every transaction which deserves unfavora-
bic comment. One Of the strange occurrences to
which we allude was reported in this journal
on the 9th instant. 1t appears that when the
parties indicted for the murder Of KYLE were ar
raigned, they all, with one exception, proposed to
remove their cases to the Court of an adjoining
county. That one, however, the notorious AU-
| GUsTUs FoRD, stated through his counsel that he
did not desire to remove his case, although he
courteously offered TO do so to crafty the State
Attorney. This energetic officer replied, that as
four of the cases had been removed he would pre-
fer having them all tried in the same Court, and
he suggested that FoRD should have his case
! transferred with the others to Anne Arundel
county The parties, says the report, then ''made
'rhe necessary oaths,' and the cases were re-
moved accordingly. The Unnecessary OATH was,
under such circumstances, simply an affidavit TO
to falsehood. The law only allows prisoner
to remove his case when he can conscientiousy
make oath that he cannot have fair and impair
tial trial in the Court in which he was indicted
NS'N 'i'N hS'N9t'J
for be had the moment before expressed his desire
to stand his trial in the Criminal Court But for
Mr.. WHITNEY's convenience he swore in open
Court 10 what he did not believe, and the officers
of that tribunal saw the traverser perjure him
| self as cooy as if it was an ordinary business
matter.
In the case of Levy, also, Mr.. WHITNEY appears
to have altogether consulted the prisoners interest
The States Attorney has, in connection with this
very affair, complained Indignantly that the Mar
shall of Police had no confidence in him, and had
hesitated 10 let him have list of the witnesses
How far the Marshals mstrust was well founded
is proved by the fact that the case has been twice
called and most of the States witnesses have each
time been missing. If the case was q civil suit
merely, and Mr.. WHITNEY was found to be twice
unprepared, he would, in all probability be con-
sdered to have neglected his clients business.
But when it is remembered that the prosecuting
officer has full power to put all the witnesses in
JAIL or force them to give security to be present in
Court when wanted, it is difficult to conceive how
he can give any valid excuse for his failure to pro-
cure their attendance. If he had been half as
honest and energetic in discharging his duty as
the Marshal was in fulfilling his obligations, the
witnesses, we venture to say, would have answer
ed to their names when called. Who can doubt
that every one of them would have been on hand
if the case had been reversed, and FRANKLIN NAFT
had been brought out for trial for the murder of
ERASMUS LEVY!
While Mr.. WHITNEY has thus again attracted to
himself public attention. Judge BOND has also sur
prised US by some odd performances. He thought
proper, on the 9th instant, to accept JOHN HINES
LY as security for notorious and desperate Of
fender. HINEsLY, as the community well knows
avowed himself, about a year ago, to be
q trader in BAIL and no one in this
city believes that he would pay or could
be made to pay any bond which his Gus
toners thought proper to forfeit. Whether he has
property or not, it matters little, for it is gener-
ally understood that the officers of the law
could never reach it, az 1t is easy to
make an assignment, and Mr.. HINEsLY's char
acter is not such as to justify too absolute a re-
lance upon his integrity. If such men are suf-
ered to become security for criminals, any scoun-
drel who has money may secure the liberation OF
jail full of thieves and rufians and laugh at the
Judge who afterwards goes through the form
of declaring the bail bonds forfeited. We
hope that Judge BOND, before lie accept
ed HINEsLY, has at least forced him to
pay his bond for 81 900 which was forfeited
In LEMONS case, several terms before Judge
STUMP was removed, but which had not been col
lected, to the best of our knowledge, six months
ago; and we hope moreover, that Judge BOND has
never condemned Judge STUNT for permitting
10 oil Gpa
other little matter we must call attention to before
we dismiss the subject. We refer to the appar-
emily caprcious mode Of melting ont punish
ment to convicted parties. y Mr.. PULLMAN,
the proprietor of The Bellevue Gardens, was
few weeks ago fined $500 for keeping
a disorderly house. lis establishment may
have been conducted in very rotous fashion
for aught we know, and we do not now,
looking at the case by Itself, pretend 10 say
that he was too heavily punished. But we
do assert that no matter how much of a nuisance
his house was, his offence was not serious as
that Of MADISON, who attempted TO shoot the
book keeper in our Office, or of LEVY who headed
gang of rufians, who with rifles in their hands,
took possession of the polls and drove away the
voters. These two men, who were within an
an ace of numbering respectable and inolfensive
citizens, were fined respectively $50 aud 500,
and PULLMAN, who let his guests quarrel over
lager beer, is mucted in the sum of $500.
Certainly this looks as ifa system of favortism
had been adopted in the Criminal Court and that
the least reputable parties fare best in conse-
q1encc of it. We leave our readers, however,
to draw their own conclusions.