The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-09-01

room.
In contrasting Judge BONDS course in the
habeas corpus case of JOSEPH EDWARDS, with Judge
BARToLs action in a similar case some two weeks
previously we expressed the opinion yesterday that
the ruling of the former was in accordance with the
established law of the State. When we thus spoke
we had only read the proceedings as they were re-
ported for this journal, and upon these our COM
ments were based and to the case it was present.
ed in our columns they were solely applicable. We
have, therefore, no modification of our remarks
to make, but further explanation is rendered
necessary by the fact that THE american and Sun
both attribute to Judge BOND some expressions
which Go not appear in the abstract of his opinion
as published in THE EXCHANGE. He stated, ac-
cordng to The San, that
The only question for him here was whether the
magistrate had probable commit the party
TINS charge 1t was not for him to try the for he
: then could come and plead dutre foiS dcquit."
TIE american makes him say substantially the
same thing. That the only question for the JUDGE
to determine was, whether the party had been le-
gally committed and upon probable cause is I'M
questionaby true but it is equally certain that
Judge BoND, if properly reported, committed
an error in intimating that under such
circumstances as he alluded to the accused
could plead" dutre .fois acqut." If Judge BOND
had thought proper to hear all the evil
dence in the on both sides, and had then
discharged the prisoner on the ground that
he did not think him guilty, the latter
might still have been subsequently indicted, tried
and convicted. The examination of a party
brought before Judge on writ of haJeqs corpus
lSnot IN legal contemplation, trial for the offence
with which he IS charged. No matter what the
decision of the Judge may be in regard to the le-
gailty Of the warrant, or the strength of the tes
tlmony under which the petitioner is held or was
committed, the law does not regard the result of
such an investigation as either an acquittal or
conviction. If the man be continued in custody
by the Judge, he may be tried and acquitted
afterwards. If he be discharged by the Judge,
he may, by parity of reason, be afterwards tried
and convicted as well. All the proceedings upon
ha5eaS corpus are merely preliminary, and the
ruling OF the Judge thereupon no more be
pleaded TO subsequent Indictment than the
granting or refusal of bail by the same function
airy. This is clear law, well recognized and
understood, and we should be better pleased to
rely on our own report of the case, than to sup
pose that Judge BoND had ruled anything so indie
feasible as the contrary doctrine If he should
entertain the views attributed to him by our con-
temporaries, he would be compelled to discharge
LEVY, MULLY and GADE, no matter upon what
evidence the Grand Jury might indict them, on
the ground that Judge BARToL had already tried
and acquitted them. We wish, therefore, to express
at the outset our dissent from that part of Judge
,',
ferred, and which we had not seen when we
acquesceC in his Interpretation of the law in such
cases as that before him on Wednesday. Neither
Judge BOND nor Judge BARToL has the right TO
pronounce a final verdict with reference to the
guilt or innocence of prisoner brought before
them on ha6eas corpus, nor is it proper for them
10 suller the examination in such q case to pro-
coed as if they were empowered to render then
and there q deinitive decision Yet it is appa-
renty upon this hypothesis that Judge BARToL
has lately acted. We do not desire now to review
the law at large, as it really stands nor to point
out how utterly inconclusive is the argument Of
one OF our contemporaries which has indirectly
replied TO the structures that have been made
upon Judge BART0Ls course Every man can
see for himself, that if the latter is to serve
as precedent justice may henceforth be
detied. If it is necessary to produce more
evidence to justify the detention of crimi-
mails, than was addsced against GADE and Null
LY, there IS, we repeat, but slight probability of
their ever being held to answer for their offences
Ihey can select their own Judge, and their own
Time and place of trial, and if, under such cir
cumstances, they cannot have a charge investi-
49, 2 moment when the States witnesses are
out Of the way, and the States Attorney en-
gagged and his Deputy unprepared in the case, it
will only be because of their inability to GO. IL
lawyer to file petition for haJea' ,vrpus. Con-
vcted and punished they cannot be on such
hearing because Habeas Corpus has no ma
chiuery for such purposes, and if they are dis
charged they are scot-free. The statement of such
doctrine ought, we submit, to supersede the ne
cessty gifts further discussion.
In directing public attention as frequently as we
have done of late 10 the cases pending against
number Of notorious offenders, we have discharged
but what we conceived to be g necessary duty.
The little disposition which the States Attorney has
manifested to see justice done, as between the
community and certain class Of men who have
been known as habitual transgressors of the law,
has impressed upon us the necessity of giving
more than usual publicity to the proceedings of
the Criminal Court. All the subterfuges to which
it was possible to recur in order to shelter these
rufians have been successfully resorted to- exposed
and abandoned. Straw bail is no longer generally
taken, and indictments are not so quietly shelved
now as they were some months ago. But the
new mode Of disposing of cases by writs Of
habeas corpus will as efectually answer the purpo-
ses of the class to which REFER unless those who
represent the State are reminded that their pro-
ceedings are noted and remembered In the
very instances to which we have alluded it seems
as if the especial object of the States Attorney
was to tNWart the police, rather than sustain
them. The aintest possible efforts are apparently
used to secure the attendance of the witnesses for
the prosecution; the prosecuting officer himself
fails to APPEAR his deputy is on one occasion utterly
unprepared to represent him; and in the case of
EDWARDS witnesses are actually suffered to
testify for the State, who had been summoned by
the prisoner. The cases have, in fact, been
managed as if for the purpose of impress
sing upon the community the idea that the
police have been arresting innocent people
upon wholly insufficient testimony. Against anv
man, other than professional bully, who had
been committed under such circumstances as those
under which MULLY and GADE were arrested, Mr..
WHITNEY, we venture to say, would have been
little more energetic, and we shall continue to
insist upon his treating his friends no better than
more decent people.
RETIRING EDIroR.-Mr. Moses S. Beach, of the
Nau Nor Yam tha l..