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

stitutionally This law, though, not only asks for
the police force but asks for all the property OF the
city. which has been bought and erected by the
city from the money of her own people.
The Legislature contemplated resistance to this
law from the city, and so it was necessary Tor the
lawmakers to construct little working machm-
ery to enact provision of compulsiOn; an engine
not of propelling, but compelling powers IT they
should meet resistance, they are to go on, and or
ganize a separate police force, with power to IN
crease it to an unlimited extent. VINO Is TO pay
for it? not the State. The Commissioners are to
provide for it; they are to make calls upon the
Treasury of the city, from time to time, as the
emergency calls for it. Suppose the city refuses
The bill appoints collectors and II the collector OF
the city refuses place the police tax aside OF the
CITY taxes and will not collect the police tax, then
comes again little of the machinery to work; an
act which is gross vio alton of the Constitution OF
the United States, which says that no State shall
emit bills of credit and shall make nothing a legal
tender except gold and silver.
Where does the Legislature get the power to
create debt for the city OF Baltimore? The right
OF the Legislature to create this debt was denied,
and many cases cited by Mr.. Meredith to sustain
the argument. 1t made no difference whether the
State authorized the issue OF bills OF credit or GER
tfcates of Indebtedness, the enactment was uncon-
stitutonal. There provisions in the bill when
! affect others outside the city, and destroy their
! inherent rights. These tremendous powers
conferred by this bill; they cause shuddering to
every man who reads them. By this law, Judges
Justices constables, are all put under subjugation
to the Board. The Governor don't go scot free, he
is deprived of his military power; and we privates
don't escape. man may go to visit TREND In
! Allegany; who knows but what detective may
! be tracking him, to draw him homeward, with
out giving him chance of redress? This is a
system ofespionage-of eaves-droppng. Here de-
tective go down to the shore of the Chesapeake
and to the hills Of Allegany, and upon the
merest suspicion, arrest drag, and imprison with
out any redress but hobea- corpus. Here is pro-
| vic VIII TAX he
rights guaranteed by the sovereign law, and which
the Legislature has no right or power to abrogate
or change.
| At this point of Mr.. Merediths argument, 1t be-
ing near twelve O'clock he compelled to ask an
indulgence for a few moments until he could regain
somewhat his strength Mr.. johnson suggested
that the Court hear the conclusion of the argument
of Mr.. NJ to-day, in which Judge Martin acqul-
esced, and the Court adjourned.
Court COMMON PLEAs.-Hon. VIM. l.. Mar
shall, Judge.
The following occupied yesterday:
Richard H. Hyde rs. Ann Mohler. Action to re-
cover damages for retaining the fixtures of plain
tiff. Verdict for plaintiff for, S75.
Assignment to-day 76 to $50.
CIRCUIT CoURr FOR BALTIMORE CIrY.-Hon. VIM.
George Krebs, Judge.
The following occupied yesterday:
Porter and others as The Mayor and City Coun-
Gil of Baltimore. Motion to dissolve an I'M junction
heretofore granted in the matter of the assessments
for grading the North avenue. Argument con-
cluded. Held sub curia.
CRIMINAL CoURT.-Hon. Henry Stump. Judge.
The Court meets this morning at 10 O'Clock, to
dispose of the usual assault and battery cases.
The Grand, Petit and Special jurors will meet
on Monday morning, at II o'clock.
Court OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND - DECEMBER
! TERM, 1S59.-ANNAPoLIs, March 2. l660.--No SO.
Reynolds and Paul Manning and Others Ap-
peal from the Superior Court Of Baltimore city
This case was submitted on written arguments to
be fled
No. 50. VIM. It. Hall and Thomas D. Loney as.
Joseph A. Richardson, claimant ofproperty attached
of Charles Howard and Alfred Poor. Appeal from
the Superior Court for Baltimore city. This case
was argued by B. c. Barroll for the appellants,
and submitted on written argument TO be filed by
Dobbin for the appellee.
| SUPREME Court OF THE UNITED STATEs.-THURs.
DAY, March /, lS60.-0n motion of Hon. r. W.
Thompson, Hon. W. NJ. Dunn, of Indiana, was adj
United an attorney and counsellor of this Court.
No. l42. Jose Dolores Pacheco's administrator
appellant, rs. the United States. This cause was
argued by Mr.. Goold for the appellant, and by
Mr. E. NJ. Stanton for the appellees.
No. 143. The executors, widow, and heirs o
Frederic Notrebe, deceased, appellants, as. Will
liam W. Voolfolk. This cause was submitted tt
the consideration of the Court on the record anC
printed argument by Mr.. Pike for the appellants
and by Mr.. Meigs for the appellee.
| No. LAG. The Bank of Pittsburg, plaintiff in err
ror, John S. Neal ct ell. This cause was argued
by Mr.. f. n. Stanton for the appellant and by
Mr.. Thompson for the appellees.
! Adjourned until tomorrow at IL o'clock.