The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-06-01

the day.
The extraordinary activity latterly displayed
by Mr.. WHITNEY in the discharge OF his official
duties has attracted the attention of the public
while the manner in which he has performed
them has elected very general expression
of surprise and dissatisfaction The strenuous
efforts made TO clear the docket just prior to
the Inauguration Of system, which will deprive
prisoners of the sympathies of packed juries-the
facility with which many notorious offenders have
secured their acquittal from long pending charges
and the disgracefu way in which the STATES Ar
ToRNEY has prepared or presented his cases. have
caused his conduct to be criticised with dcser-
we'd severity and freedom. Our reports OF
the proceedings of the Criminal Court during
the past few days show that there has been
marvellous resusciaon of old cases Indict-
ments which have been Wondering for many
months in dusty pigeon-holes, until they are well
nigh MS yellow and venerable as the papyrus scrolls
of the Pyramids have been again brought hur-
riedly into Court. Men have been summoned
to answer charges which are TO be substantiated
by witnesses whose recollection of the various
transactions has become as dim rs the ink
which records them. The newborn zeal of the
STATES ATTORNEY is not likely therefore 10 be
productive Of the important results it seems
to promise. Several cases have already been
Sted or finally disposed of because of the failure
of the Public Prosecutor to procure or produce the
necessary evidence the part of the State
1t is not strange that after the lapse of perhaps
two years, the parties who could once have testi-
fed TO the facts stated in these old indictments
should have died, changed their residence
or have furnished some other excuse for the
SHERIFF's inability to find them. But for the
delay, to which this state of things is atributa-
BILE, Mr.. WHITNEY is Immediately responsible; and
he is amenable to far graver censures if he has
wantonly abstained from securing the attendance
of such witnesses as still remained within reach
of the process of the Court. It so happens that
two cases have been called and dismissed during
the past week, in each of which We are satisfied
that the non-attendance of material witnesses was
owing 10 the procrastnaton or some more indie
feasible default Of the STATES ATTORNEY. We be-
ieve it is altogether to his cupable neglect that
the parties accused are indebted for their escape
from punishment. In one of these cases the
traverser WAS charged with shooting at man
with intent % murder him. and plea of mot
;'guilty' was confessed hy the State because the
assailed party had removed from the city and
did not desire to appear against his assaiIant
The occurrence in question took place more than
two years since, and we have some knowledge Of
the fact that the individual now wanted by Mr.
WHITNEY remained here for long while subse
quent TO the affair, and could have been com,
PEELED at any time TO testify, or to give security
Tor his future appearance. Moreover, the offence
was committed in open day, upon crowded
thoroughtare, and almost in view Of the pc
lice, and it is absurd to suppose tina
after honest and diligent inquiry, Mr.. WHITNEY
has been unable 10 find any one who saw the out
rage and could identify the perpetrator. In
the other case TO which we allude, the ira
Verser was tried for participating in an attack
on this Office nearly two years ago and was
acquitted because the solitary individual who was
examined was unable to identify him. A wit
ness who could have given a clear account of the
transaction, and also have pointed out those who
We're engaged in it, here for twelve months
afterwards, but was never called into Court In
this instance, too, the outrage complained of was
pclpetrated at noon, upon public street. and the
police interiered and arrested all who took part in
1t. Notwithstanding this, no one was summoned
orapparently inquired for, who was capable Of
giving the Court or Jury any information about
the matter. In neither of these cases does Mr.
WHITNEY appear TO have used the slightest effort
to acqualnt himself with the particulars or to OBJ
tam the names Of the witnesses by whom they
could have been proven. On the contrary, he
soonno to hava SAlnlnnsly UGded taking any az
tive steps to present these transactions in such 6
light as might have led 10 the conviction of tn,
guilty parties. If public justice has been defeated
IN these two instances, as we know it has been, il
is simply because The sworn officer of the law has
failed conscentiously TO discharge an obvious
duty. From the shameless Indifference to his oh.
legations that is apparent from his proceedings in
these cases. we might Judge of the honesty, intel
ligence and fairness with which he has tried those
which have occupied the Court and attracted the
notice of the public during the past week But il
Is not necessary to base upon mere inference any
un;tvorable conclusions about the conduct of the
STATES ATTORNEY. The persstency with which
he has submitted case after case TO juries which have
rendered verdict after verdict in reckless disregard
OF established and undeniabe facts, is alone suffi-
cient TO justify the community in expressing the
disparagimg opinions about him that are every
where repeated.