The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-10-22

The Commissioners appointed by the Legisla-
ture of Maryland, at its recent session, to make
sale of the present tobacco warehouses in this city,
and to erect Il new building, upon deep water fer
the obacco-inspection purposes of the State, have
caused to be inserted, in our advertising columns
of to-day their answer to the Bill Of Injunction
filed against them last week, in the Circuit Court
OF this city, together with a copy of the letter
from Governor HICKS, in pursuance of which the
State has been made party complainant to the
proceeding. The attention of our readers will
doubtless be attracted to these documents, not less
by the peculiar character Of the Governors COM
munication, than by the interest which naturally
attaches itself to so singular controversy.
Whatever differences of opinion may exist, in
regard to the wisdom of the legislation under
which the Commissioners were empowered and
directed to act, there can be no dispute concern
ing the constitutional power of the General As
sembly TO adopt the policy in question, nor is
there the slightest pretcnce that the statute itself
is open to any constitutional objection. Such
being the conceded facts, it would seem TO be
manifest, that no citizen or combination of citi-
zens, cam have any lawful right, any legitimate
standing in a Court of justice, to hinder or en-
barrass the execution of the law 1t is one of the
many cases. every day occurring under a repre-
sentative government, in which the opinions and
Wishes if need be the interests and convenience
of individuals, must yield to the clear and con-
stitutonal expression of the legislative will In
the present case, it appears that number of re-
spectacle gentlemen, principally planters resident
in Prince Georges county and merchants con-
nected with the tobacco-trade in this city, desiring
to prevent the consummation of the law in ques-
ton, and having employed counsel fer that pur
pose-but not being exactly in n legal position
10 contest, in their capacity as ordinary citi-
zens, what every other citizen, in the same
capacity has an equal right to maintain and
insist on upholding-deemed it expedient, if prac-
ticahe, to egalize their antagonism to the law by
calling in the name and assistance of the State.
At first blush, it would seem somewhat singular
that the Government, whose sworn duty it is to see
all the laws faithfully executed should be solicited TO
prevent particular law from being executed at all.
But then there are cases, in which, undoubtedly, it
would be the duty Of the Executive to interfere, to
prevent any law from being improperly or irregu-
larlv executed. Upon this latter tack, therefore,
the Governor seems to have been very adrotly ap-
preached, and the result is the remarkable paper
which the Commissioners have published, in which
he authorizes MessrS. ALEXANDER and SCHLEY the
counsel of the private parties compliments, to ap-
pear fer the State likewise, warning them, at the
same time that they must look to their private
clients for their fees. The sole ground upon which
be gives them the authority thus gratuitously to
serve the Commonwealth, is: that two out of
three of the Commissioners have assumed to act in
the premises and in particular manner, and it is
proper, in his Judgment, that proceedings should
be taken to arrest the action of those two until the
Appellate Court shall have determined whether the
concurrence of the third Commissioner was not
also requisite, under the statute, and different
mode ofproceeding demanded.
Now, without assuming 10 resolve legal ques-
tons, which may be considered grave, because
they are legal we cannot help thinking that some
things must be plain, in this matter, to the COM
monest understanding If the State has really any
interest IN this controversy she ought to appear in
her own right by her own counsel and not as the
hand-maIden OF private griefs or represented by
the counsel OF other people. The Governor has no
right under the Constitution to emnIov counsel
except where, in his judgment, the public interest
''requires it," and then he is bound by his official
obligation, to employ them, and refer them to the
Legislature for their compensation. Such is
not only the letter of the fundamental law
but the obvious suggestion of wisdom and
of that sound policy which separates official
action from private influences. But in the case
before us, it seems impossible to conceive in
what manner the public interests can possibly re-