The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-01-10
Ia w INTELLIGENCE.
TRIAL OF MILTON II. WHITNEY.


lion. Henry May, States Attorney, prosecuting
State Us. Milton Whitney. Indictment for
making false report to the House of Delegates
Messrs. Charles II. Pitts and VIM. Pinkney Whyte
for the edefence.-Testimouy for the State con-
tinued-Ex-Sheritf Creamer recalled-Mr. Cream
er produced his account book which is kept by the
clerk in his office. He explained the manner OF
making the entries and the different accounts with
the several officers of the COurt.-By defence
Did not make any settlement with any of the Off
of the Court, at tn end Of each term except
with the crier.-By State-There was nothing to
prevent Mr.. Whitney from getting a settlement at
the end of each term.-By defence-It was not
the practice of the officer to have correct settle
ment with the officers at the end of each term
Milton B. Kidd, sworn-Am keeper of the records
of the House Of Delegates: recoliect the passage of
an order by the House of Delegates asking Mr..
Whitney to make report; witness directed the
order to Mr. Whitney by mail; witness
ceived a report from Mr.. Whitney on the 18th
of February.-By defence-Think there was no
action taken upon the report.-The defence be-
ing about to question Mr. Kidd in regard to the
proceedings of the House on the report, Mr. May
suggested that it was unnecessary, they had the
journal of the House, which record evidence.
Mr. May, then remarked that he would offer in ev-
idence certain papers from the office of the Clerk
of the Superior Court, in the of the State
Chas. F. Cloud and suretes, and also of the State
rs. Nathaniel Hickman. He offered them to show
that Mr.. Whitney received certain sums of money in
the way of fees and commissions which he failed to
to the reception of the papers.--Mr. Whyte said
they would not object if they were trying the in
dictment for embezzlement but this in
dictment charges the traverser with making
false report to the House of Delegates, of the
fees received by him in his office of States Ator
ney, and also with making false report as to the
legal expenses of his otiice.-Mr. May said that
he wanted to show that fees and commissions had
been received, and that they had not been report
ed to the House.-hIr. Whyte said they objected
because only secondary evidence hnt
to the adoption of the new code, when any public
officer in receipt of public monies of the State be-
came defaulter to the State, it was the duty of
the State Treasurer to call upon the Attorney Gen
eral or other Attorney, to prosecute the claim on
the part OF the State, for the recovery of the
money, upon the bond of the defaulter, and not
until that claim had been satisfied and the
money recovered could the prosecution re-
ceive one cent of compensation. The Constitution
provides that no money shall be paid from the
Treasury except upon warrant of the Comptrol-
Ter. and therefore the States officer could have re-
ceived nothing unless the money collected was paid
into the Treasury. The prosecutor is not in such
in the position of States Attorney but only as
an Attorney representing the State upon an ap-
pointment by the Treasurer. BY prohibition of
the law the States Attorney cannot receipt for any
money received on account of defaulting officer,
and cases have occurred where defaulting officers
have paid money to the States Attorney of coun-
ty, and been required and compelled to pay
it the second time. BY the act of lS4l, certain
commissions allowed the States officer in such
cases. going to prove that he is not looked upon in
the light of States Attorney, prosecuting in his
official, but in professional capacity Another
objection is that these papers can't prove that the
traverser was paid one cent of money; they don't
show any payment, only show the fact that judg-
ment has been satisfied If that be allowed, then
the record of the traverser in all his private prac
tice might be gone into, and he be required to ac
count for the receipt of every fee in any in
which the State of Mary land might have an interest
Mr.. May said that Mr.. Whyte had the advantage
OF him in explaining the practices and system of
doing business in the office of the Comptroller bav-
ing filled that office at time with marked abili
ty, but he would rather go the fountain head and
what the laws in regard to the functions of
the States officer, especially the practice just
stated by his FRIEND if it was practice in his
opinion vicious he Constitution, the fun
damental law of the State, prescribes the
duty of the States Attorney, and an
act Of the Legislature could not change those du-
ties, much less the practice growing up in public
office of the State. The third section of the fifth
article of the Constitution, says plainly and
phatically that the States Attorney shall perform
such duties and receive such fees and commissions
as are now received by the Attorney General and
his deputies. The law then, was that the Attorney
General and his deputies were the exclusive repre-
sentatives of the State, in all Courts of
justice, when the interest of the State
was concerned. The new Code, from which
MIR. May read, makes it the duty of the States At
torney to prosecute defend in all courts, in any
suit in which it was necessary for the State
to be represented. The tenth article of the
Constitution requires the Attorney to keep a
book in which shall be entered all sums of
money received by him as compensation for
official services, which also means commissions
Mr.. May said that be distinctly denied the right
for the gentlemen at Annapolis to appoint coun-
sci to represent the State, if the practice existed,
and he did not know that it did exist; he thought
1t was vicious practice and ought to be put down
If Mr.. Whitney, in the case referred t., received
any MONIES, no matter what the amount, large or
small, the principle was the same, he was bound to
return sucn monles.-Mr. May contended that
the papers should be admitted d-Mr Pitts
agreed with Mr.. May that the amounts of
money whether large or small did not
measure the culpabity of the accused, the
principle was the same; the papers, however, did
not establish any fact of payment of MONEYS to
him prior to his report; it was quite different:
there was receipt dated April &C. 1860, two
months after the order of the House was passed.
Mr.. NAV, here said, that he would follow il I'M
by proof, to show that Mr.. Whitney received the
amounts of the judgments tive years previous to the
order made by the House of Delegates-
MIR. Pitts continued, and said the question was
whether Mr.. Whitney had received the money as
the States Attorney. The papers did not show
whether the cases were ever settled In one OF
them-State u.s. Hickman-the traverser had enter
ed confession of judgment which, by law, con.
| sttuted lien upon his property. Mr.. Whitney,
then representing the interests of the State not as
States Attorney, but simply as an attorney, filed
bill in Chancery praying the sale of the pro-
perty, and decree accordingly passed
and the sale took place. Afterwards a petition
was filed by Mr.. Walsh, one ofthe sureties of Hick
man, asking an appropriation of the proceeds of the
sale. MIR. Pitts urged that the papers were not ev-
| idence to be admitted in the case to prove the
point at issue.-Mr. May insisted that Mr.. Whit
ney could only act in such case as the States At
torney, and that on the 1lth day of May, 1856, be
had received large amount of the money on the
judgment against Cloud from Sheriff Gaskins and
how much he paid into treasury. Whether he had
4 right to receive it is another question.-Mr