The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-11-02

In calling public attention. few DAVIS spo n
the Migrant official malversation of the State s
Attorney for this city, in the case of GREGORY
BARRETT, we took occasion to say that it was but
one, out OF many instances, in which Mr. WHIT
NEY mad laid himself open to the visitation of the
law The parallel case of SoAGMERs. to which we
alluded some time back, and for his conduct in
which he has thus far strangely gone UNPUBLISHED
was one in which his official action was not Ice,
hostile to the substantial mercantile interests of
the community, than in gross and criminal viola
ton of his duty.
Our readers, and especially those who are en-
gagged in trade, are aware of the provision of the
Code (taken from the act of 1852, Oh. 1897, by
which persons, not permanent residents in this
state are prohibited from selling, Offering, or
exposing for sale, by sample, card trade list. &c.
"lthn the limits of this city, any goods, mer-
chandise, &c, without first obtaining a three.
hundred-dollar license. In order to render the
projection of our own citizens more complete an
other section of the law prohibits all persons resi-
dents of the city and themselves licensed to sell
from allowing non-residents to use their names or
places OF business for the purpose of making sales
in violation of the above provision The penalty
Is the same in the case of the nonresident trader
and his resident accomplice, viz: not less than
three hundred nor more than six hundred dollars
for each offence. 1t is unnecessary to add that a
more salutary enactment, in its class is not to be
found on the statutebook. 1t became originally
part of our State legislation at the earnest soli
citation OF the mercantile community for their
relief against serious and growing evil, and its
rigid enforcement is essential for the security of
our own people against the competition of stran
gers, who pay no part of our taxes and contribute
nothing to the industry or capital of the CITY.
On the 4th of April last, presentments were made
by the Grand Jury, and on the 9th of April in
dictments were found, against GEORGE SoMMERs
and JAMES G. FITZPATRICK. The former was
charged, as nonresident, with selling goods by
sample on November 2Sth, 1859, without first OBJ
tanning license. FITZPATRICK was indicted for
having permitted SoMMERs to sell under his
name. FITZPATRICK was arrested and admitted to
bail in the sum of five hundred dollars,
being 500 less than the fine to which he was liza
ble His case was continued to the May term,
and on May oath it was removed to Baltimore
county. the last term of Judge PRICE, Court,
niAfArRlcK was tried and CONTRIBUTIONS L.
s' Esq, Mr.. WHITNEY's law partner, be-
e e..1 - 'ne counsel defending him. Mr.. SOM
' ~' Noie fortunate. Before the Sheriff could
-. 'a'n 'ne writ, on the 4th of April
ne was non EST and the merchants who had ta1,on
some trouble To have him brought 70 ~, ,,;s,,.,.
heard no more OF him until about ,ba -s;ss,o q
September, when he made his apnaara,,a. -
Gilmor House. A few days before b;o -. '--o
well-known and most respectable merchant 49,
had interested himself in the affair." called on NJ
WHITNEY to enquire as to the state of the co.
and was informed that nothing had been done, as
SoMMERs had not been seen since the issuing Of