The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-01-22

tricty according to its terms
The Sd section of the 9Th article prescibes the duty of
he States Attorney in these words
The states Attorney shall perform such duties and
eceVe such fees and commissions prescribed
y law for the Attorney General and his deputies, and
uch other duties fees and commissions hereafter
Re prescribed by latu.n
e removed from office for incompeency, wful neglect
# duty and misdemeanor in Office, conviction in
curt of law 1t is admitted that it the duty of
he Attorney General his deputies make report of
lis official receipts and expenses the House Of Dele
gates No subsequent act OF Assembly since the adoption
u the present Constitution imposes duty upon States
Attorneys
It is plain, therefore that the words wilfu neglect of
iuty IN the Constitution, must refer to the neglect OF
those duties imposed provided by the instrument IT.
SELL embracing OF course, all such other duties as IL en-
powers the Legislature to prescribe by act Of Assembly
At the time Of the adoption of the Constitution the
only duties imposed upon States Attorneys were those
been performed the Attorney and his dep
utes and no0 the only duties devolving upon the
states Attorney in addition those duties above men
toned are such have been prescribed 6y au since the
adoption of the Constitution.
Can then, order of the House of Delegates impose
such official duty on the States Attorney wilful ne
gect of which will subject that officer to the penalty i'm
posed by the 9Th article Of the CONSTITUTIONS
1t appears to me that such cannot be the effect unless
the order of the House of Delegates being the expression
of the will of part only of the Legislature, have the
effect of Act of Assembly, which last by the Constitu
ton is required to be passed by majority of the whole
number of members in each branch with record of the
vote yeas and nays upon its passage Can be in
erred that an order of the House of Delegates imposes
such official duty the States Attorney from the Ian
of the 2Sth section of the Sd article of the Cons
tuition which gives the House power call for all pub
lie or ofhcial papers and records?
This evidently refers to such papers records
already in existence which required by law to be
kept and relates persons having charge such papers
records or who required to make keep them
1t does not refer to heterogeneous proposed
by the House, to statements required by them be
made unless such papers records ought be produced
as proofs or vouchers in support of such answers or
statements The duty of responding to the order of the
House of Delegates is, indeed incumbent upon every cit
izen; but 1T is not an official duty unless the officer
lrppi nv aGa
port or answer.
Failure answer, falsely to answer, is offence
against the House Of Delegates, not punishable by the
Courts but by the House of Delegates ITSELF as
tempt of ats authority the Constitution having given to
that body the power to punish such offences The power
to call for all public official papers and records implies
the to enforce obedience to the call and false
turn made thereto is much failure to the
order calling for such distinct refusal make
any would be- 1t is exclusively within the power
the House of Delegates judge of the offence commit
ted in either case, will be the consid
Grafton that if the raverser punished this tribu
nal for the refusal failure to comply with any order of
the House of Delegates such conviction and punishment
could be pleaded in bar of subsequent attempt of
that body punish him for the offence The House
of Delegates would very justly conclude that it not
in the of Court usurp its constitutional perog
alive.
Under these views of the law applicable to this case
this Court not called upon to express any opinion
the TRUTH fraudulent character alsty of the report
which is the subject of this Indictment to give any
judgment the of charges claim expen
ses which may have been deducted allowed by the
COMPTROLLER or other proper officer Holding that the
order of the House of delegates alone could not impose
such duty upon the States Attorney, wful neg
lect of which would subject him to the penalty imposed
for the neglect of official duties prescribed by law and
because Of the want of jurisdiction in the matter, this
Court is compelled to enter verdict of scquittal.
After the Judge had concluded, Mr.. Pitts said
that upon the part of the traverser they were
ready to go with the trial of the other indict-
ments, and that they elected to try them before the
| Court.-The Court remarked that then they
would have to be deferred until the close of the
| present term; the Court intended to proceed at
| once with the regular business of the term.-Mr.
May said the traverser had an undoubted right to
| elect how he should be tried.-The Court said it
was expressly provided so in the Code.-Mr. May
| remarked that he was aware that such was one OF
the provisions of the Code, and the question in re-
gard to the selection of this tribunal, by the ira
verser, having now been disposed Of he did not
know but that the counsel on the other side had
some other motion to make.-The States officer
and the counsel for the traverser then conversed
together, after which Mr.. MAY said
to the Court, that after a conference with the gen.
tlemen the other side, they having selected this
tribunal in which to try the other indictments, he
would remark that he wished to examine the opin
ion OF the Court, just delivered, with care and at
tentiOn, after the adjournment and would be pre-
pared in the morning to announce what disposition
the State would make of the other cases.-The
Court said there was no necessity for any haste in
the matter. There was much business to occupy
the Court at the present time; large number OF
cases carried from the last term
which must be taken up at once, and there were
also many new cases requiring the actor
of the present Grand Jury; besides very large
number of persons were in Jail awaiting trial, and
it necessary that their should be disposed
of.-Mr May said that as to the unfortunates il
Jail, they always demanded the early attention o
the Court.-Judge Bond said he would go or
with the regular business of the term, and the tria
of the other indictments against Mr.. Whitney
would have to be deferred; if they take jury tria
the might be soon disposed of-Mr. May
said if the defence would do that; if they would
consent to jury trial here, the State would be rea
dy to proceed to trial at Mr. Pitts said they
had elected to try the cases before the Court. They
were not willing to submit the question:
Mr.. May said it was only in reply to the suggestion
made by the Court that he had announced that the
State would proceed at once before jury. The
defence had perfect right to elect how the trav
erser should be tried 1t was for the purpose o.
examining the Courts opinion more fully, that he
asked time before announcing the disposition which
the State intended to make of the other indict
ments-After some further consideration, it was
understood that on Wednesday morning Mr.. May
would announce to the Court the States determi
nation in regard to the other cases.--The peti
jury discharged until Wednesday morning, a
which time the city appeal cases will be taken W
and all witnesses desired to be in attend ance
The Court at one O'Clock adjourned until thi
morning at ten o'clock.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS-JUDGE MARSHALL.
John Sharer and wife Us. Joshua Rupprecht. Al
appeal from Justice Mclaughlin. Judgment re
versed.--W. Lymberry Us. J. Montgomery. APP
peal from J. Reid. Dismissed.--Wm. Good Us
State. Same from Reid. Judgment reversed
John ii. Fecke Same. Same. Judgment re
versed.--Assignmen to-day $50 to 1874.
SUPERIOR COURT-JUDGE MARTIN.
John Coates as. VIM. Morrison. Referred
Richard 5. Hardesty Us. David Moore. Verdict
for plaintiff for S4,097.47. Mclean and Williams
for plaintiff; j. Mason Campbell for defendant.--
Benjamin Caughey Us. John Coates Refereed
Joseph Ii. McGee Us. James E. Crangle, garnishet
of VIM. Dorbacker. Non pros.--Mary Ann Will
son Us. John Hinesey. Action for damages, in the
erection of a certain wall. A. w. Machen fol
plaintiff; Whyte and Carr for defenoant.--As
signment to-day 3S4 to 426.
CITY CIRCUIT COURT-JUDGE KREBs.
John Dryer Thomas A. Cunningham AND
others. A creditors bill to set aside certain deeds
alleged to be fraudulent. Messrs. Price, Wall.
and Carson for complainant; William Schey fol-
observation-disclosures L. Massicott Peter r.
Massicott. Bill for divorce uinculo matrimonii
filed. Wallis and Thomas for complainant; re.
Barry for defendant.-Samuel Adams as. Mar.
garet Adams. Bill for divorce rinculo matrimao
ma filed. VIM. p. Preston for complainant.