The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-11-03

In the case of the State as. ERASMUS LEVY, while
the right of the prisoner to insist upon being tried
by the Court rather than before jury, was being
argued, Mr.. WHITE, one of the counsel for the
defence, thought proper to say:
The prisoner had certainly right to be tried before
the Court and he desired to be SO tried He did not mean
to say any thing in regard the gentlemen summoned;
he had doubt they would perform their duties
and intelligent men, but the community had been pre-.
JUDGED against his clenthe had already been tried by
of the public papers of the city and found guilty. day
by day has he been held before the community guilty
man and of the officers of this Court called
count because his trial has not been brought
speedily His client knowing all this, is anxious and
willing to be tried before the Court relying upon the in
egy Of the Judge, whom he knows will decide the
fairly and legally not looking to what his fellow citizens
snail say but melting out justice to the prisoner as he
poets to be judged himself"
As the Exchange was evidently the journal al
luded to by Mr.. WHITE, we cannot allow his
wholly gratuitous and unfounded accusation to
pass unnoticed. The statement that LEVY has
been, by the Exchange tried for the murder of NAFF
and found guilty, is an assumption which is not
warranted by single fact. When LEVY was
brought before Judge BARToL writ of haJeas
corpus, and released from Imprisonment on the
testimony of the HINEsLEY family, certainly did
demonstrate the papablefalsity of the evidence by
which he procured his discharge. We did not, as
we might have done, assail the credibility of the
witnesses by making the VIGOROUSLY bad charac-
ter of the individual, under whose influence they
were generally known to be acting, the founda-
ton of our structures We merely took the
testimony adduced in WooDwARDs case and
compared it with the evidence given by the
HINEsLEY circle in behalf of LEVY. We asserted
that the record presented a glazing and wanton
case of perjury, and we did not hesitate to ndi-
cate who were in our judgment the guilty par
ties. We had the right to comment as we thought
best on the public proceedings of our Courts, and
the propriety of our course ought not to be ques-
toned in this instance-for the publicity given to
tue matter has prevented whole family from
committing a fearful crime twice over. The alibi
which was proved so conclusively be-
fore Judge BARToL, was not urged in LEWIS de-
fence before Judge BOND, though there is every
reason 10 suppose the same plea would have heen
again put In, had we not proved its worthlessness
On another occasion contrasted Mr.. WHITYEY,s
activity in PATTEN's case with his dilaioriness in
LEWIS. We showed how he had kept witness
in Jail lest pickpocket should escape Justice;
while in the more important case against LEVY
no earnest measures were apparently adopted to
secure the attendance of the States witnesses
Our remarks were meant to illustrate the different
treatment that different classes of offenders re-
ceived from WHITNEY, and were not simply in
tended to call him to account for failing
to bring LEVY to speedy trial
but if such had been their object