The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-09-12
BALTIMORE.
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER u, 1860

The distinguished counsel of the Baltimore
and Ohio Railroad Company has deemed it
necessary to address us a communication, in his
official capacity and on behalf OF his client, for
the purpose of explaining the manner in which
the LIST of October happened to be fixed by The
Circuit Court for the hearing of the extra-dvidend
Injunction. By reference to the note of Mr.. La
TRoHE, which is inserted on this page, it will be
seen that the day in question was appointed by
Judge GILES, at the instance of the complainants
counsel, and not only Irrespective of the Com
s.pany and its Wishes" but in spite of the remon-
strances of Mr.. LATRoBE himself That the reasons
which influenced Judge GILES, in the matter were
in the remotest degree inconsistent with the high
est sense of judicial obligation, Mr.. LATRoBE of
course does not mean to intimate and certainly it
was very far from our Imagination to suggest. His
Honor acted, beyond doubt, as he always acts,
in perfect consistency with the propriees and du.
ties of his station. But we must be allowed to say
that the grounds of Mr.. LATRoBE's opposition to
the postponement of the hearing, do not strike u.s.
as stated in his note to have been of very con-
elusive character. He tells US he gave 'tas rea-
tson,' that the hearing should take place on the
''event, be advised, probably, whether the notes
above mentioned, Ii. e., the notes to Messrs
"GARRETT, HOPKINS, &c. could be paid with
cont mourning the penalties of a contempt"
Now we believe it 10 be conceded fact,
that the Company has suspended the payment
of the cash portion Of the extra dividend
tn all those who had not been lucky and locomo.
tive enough to appropriate tneIr uer,--
notice was given of the contemplated application
for an Injunction Mr.. GARRETT did not deem il
necessary 10 'bc advised by the Court, whether
he would ''ncur the penalties Of contempt" be.
fore he stopped these cash supplies. On the con
trary, he closed the doors on the instant. We
presume that Mr.. LATRoBE himself conceded with
Mr.. GARRETT in the propriety of this for the latter
would hardly have acted in such q case against the
advice of his counsel We are al a loss then to un,
derstand why Mr.. G ARRETT did not feel it equally
his duty to stop the payment of the notes well as OF
the cash-the circumstances being IDENTICAL Mr..
LArRoDE is too good lawyer to have advised
him that there would be any more contempt in
volved in paying cash to these who held no notes,
than in paying cash to the President and those
Directors who were fortunate enough to be better
hOt S'op wv
notes? why SO anxious to be ''advised probably
in the one case ana not in the other ? We con-
TESS we are not astute enough to answer these
questions, and if Mr.. LATRoBE had no better
reason to give Judge GILES for fastening the
hearing, we do not wonder that his Honor thought
there would be no harm done by waiting till he
had disposed of his Admiralty Docket, which we
presume was the rell obstacle to the naming of
an earlier day. We must be pardoned therefore
for saying with great Difference to Mr.. La
TRoBE, that his explanation seems to us
to have only made his case worse-an operation
of which we think it will be generally conceded
that there was not much necessity. The truth is,
that the question as to what day was set down for
the hearng-aud the other question as to whether
the company incurred 'rhe penalties of q
contempt in the one case or the other as stated
Are mere side issues. The giving of the notes
of the company to favored and exclusive few of
its oflicer3-the President himself at their head
under the peculiar circumstances attending the
transaction in controversy constitutes the real
point of official aud personal morality to which
we have invited the public attention, and which
concerns the public interest. We will not consent
to weaken, by comment, the damaging force which
is involved in the mere statement of the facts
We will only add that the morality of the trans
action does not seem to US to be assisted by the
engaged in it were anxious, if possible, to get an
idea beforehand as to the judicial responsibility
they were likely to incur from its consummation.