The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1860-10-29

WHITNEY deliberately, wilfully and with full
knowledge of that guilt, confessed plea of not
guilty on the part of the State and put an end to
the prosecuton-not only relieving BARRETT from
that indictment, but precluding the State from
ever reviving the charge against him. On the
back of the indictment, the following endorsement,
in pencil, is the memorandum of the transaction:
"Enter plea of not guilty as to BARRETT con.
fessed hy State JUDGE
The entry on the docket was made accordingly,
and there it stands, as of the 9th of June
Now deliberately repeat the charge, that when
Mr.. WHITNEY confessed that BARRETT was not
guilty, and when Judge BOND directed that con-
fession to be entered both the Judge and the States
Attorney knew that BARRETT was guilty, and that |
they could prove his guilt, in ten minutes, at any
time by summoning witnesses who were to be |
found every day, and whose character was beyond |
suspicion. Nay, not only had the proof Of BAR
RETr's guilt been given, under oath, in their pres
ence, in open Court, less than month before the
official outrage in question-but it had been fur
nished six months before, in the most conclusive
shape and in permanent form, in the printed vol |
ume of evidence taken in the contested election |
cases in the House of Delegates, where our readers
will find the dispositions of DR.. BAXLEr and Mr.. |
Kinks, extending from page 224 to 230 inclusive |
The volume in question was distributed by
thousands everywhere throughout the city, and its
contents were fully known to the whole commu-
nifty, the most important parts Of it having been
printed in the public papers By reference to it,
our readers will see that BARRETT was not only
| the ringleader in the riot of which Mr.. WHITNEY
confessed him not guilty, but that he bore himself
through all of it with the most dcvilish and blood
thirsty malignity, firing his pistol, five times with
deadly intent-one of his shots taking effect in Mr.
! STILES, another in Mr.. DUFFY-Mr. STILES having
received four balls and Mr.. STARR two balls, in
the course of the onslaught which BARRETT head
ed. More than this. On the Doth February,
1850, MICHAEL WARNER, Esq, examined as u wit
ness on the part of the Hon. HENRY WINTER DA-
Wis, before Judge GILES, and called TO establish
the fairness of the election, (of which he was one
of the judges, testified in open Court, TO having
seen BARRETT "iring two or three times, right
"and left, during the disturbance The deposit
ton of Mr. WARNER may be found on page $50
of the Congressional document relating to the Ma
ryland contested election. Not only, therefore,
did Mr. WHITNEY and Judge BOND know the alb
SOute guilt Oh DAhRElIj NOlu Nudl Uatl uttu
sworn TO in their personal presence, but it was a
matter of public notoriety, patent on the records Of
the House of Delegates and the House of Represen-
tatyes, and promulgated, known and talked of in
every quarter of the town. Both the Judge and the
Attorney knew, besides that even if they had not
heard word on the subject, the notorious charac-
ter of BARRETT was such as to create of itself
prima facie case of guilt on his part, on charge
of rioting at the polls. He was we'll known polit-
ical outlaw; the leader of notorious gang of
reprobates, the Grip Raps, whoseannals were re
cord ofviolence and blood. lie was warm political
friend of Mr.. WHITNEY San active member of the
convention which nominated him as States At
torney The occasion on which he was charged
with rotng was the same villanous mockery of
an election, which shamefully gave Mr.. WHITNEY
his place as States Attorney and We charge once
more that the confession of not guilty which Mr..
WHITNEY made in his favor was wifu and cor
rupt return, on Mr.. WHTYEY's part, for political
favors received, and was made with the knowl-
edge that it was not true, and that he violated his
oath of office by making it. We say to the Grand
Jury with great respect, that if they will take
the trouble to call the witnesses and examine into
the facts which we here state they will find the
case as clear as day, and that it is their dutyfrom
which there can be no escape-to take the neces
sary steps for Mr.. WHITNEY, removal from Office,
without one hours delay.
And now, as to Judge BoND's participation in
the transaction. We need not inform any intelli-
gent reader that Judge has no more right to d.
rect the prosecutor to confess plea of not guilty,
than he has to order the counsel for the prisoner to
enter plea of guilty. His interference, in either
case, would be an official improperly, and if will
fully and corruptly attempted, would be a NAL
feasancc in Office justifying his indictment and re-
moval. Neither would his suggestion or advice
on the subject be any excuse, legal or moral, TO
the prosecutor, for confusing the innocence of a
party whom he knew TO be guilty. The RESPONSE
bty is the prosecutors only, and he would
have no more right to violate his oath on the
Judges suggestion, than to commit murder or
robbery, on a like pretence. 1t is his business to
prosecute, and the Judges to try. IF the Judge
thinks proper to acquit q man who is on trial and
who is proven to be guilty. that is the Judges af-
fair, for which he must answer. But if the prose
cutor without waiting for trial, thinks proper to
discharge the prisoner in advance, knowing him
to be guilty-that is his responsibility, out of
which the Judges counenance cannot help him.
The only result of the Judges taking part with
him in what they both knew to be an Illegal dis
charge, would lie TO make them both indictable
together. This being very clear law, we will not
presume that Judge BOND did anything more than
act iudicay upon the confession of not guilty,
which Mr.. WHITNEY saw fit 10 make. But was he
bound to act upon such confession? He knew,
as well as Mr. WHITNEY, that the confession OF no
guilty was untrue. He knew that BARRETT was gull
ty, and he knew that Mr.. WHITNEY knew it, rs well.
Was he bound to sit quietly and allow the prosecu-
tor to commit fraud on public justice, under color
of performing an official duty? 1t was, on the con-
trary, his bounden obligation, forthwith, to ap-
point temporary prosecutor and go before the
grand jury himself, with the facts, in order that
Mr.. WHITNEY might be instantly displaced. The
very fact that Mr.. WHITNEY dared to approach
Judge BOND with such fraud, involves
more than TO dwell on. That he should
not have been instantly and Indignantly repulsed,
is still worse. Let the reader imagine, if he can,
Mr.. WHITNEY approaching Chief Justice TAYEY,
or Judge PRICE, or Judge BREWER, with delhi.
crate confession of not guilty which they and he
knew to be false. How long does he think that
Mr.. WHITNEY's name would remain on the roll Of
Attorneys in either of the tribunals over which
those Judges preside? The question supplies its
own answer, and we therefore repeat, that what
ever may have been Judge BoND's participation in
the affair, it can in no shape, and under no pre-
tence, diminish the guilt for which Mr.. WHITNEY
is Observation-Disclosures effect it may justly have
upon the responsibility of Judge BOND ITSELF
With these comments and explanations, we again
recall the transaction to the Grand Jury and the
public. 1t is but one of many things for which
Mr.. WHITNEY is answerable to the law-yet it is
so clear, so demonstrable, so unanswerable, that
have selected it especially for notice, confident
that it is impossible for right-minded and ntelli-
gent men to entertain any difference of opinion in
regard to it. That its prosecution and punishment
should have been delayed long has already ex-
cited sufficient surprise. We cannot realize the
idea that they possibly be delayed much
longer.
| DAILY STEAMBOAT LINE TO Annapolis AND WEST
| RIvER.-By an advertisement to be found else
| where, and by still extended notice in our
local columns, the attention of the public is called