The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-01-12

these allegations and then to consider the defsnos
defence which was utterly futile, lust such a one
as he had expected it would be- which left the trav-
erser upon the horns of dilemma guilty accord.
ing to the theory of the prosecution, aud guilty
according to his own defence. MIR. May said it !
was immaterial when Mr.. Whiney's accounts we're
MED, the House OF Delegates look for them in the
Treasurer's office, the proper depository and could
not lind them, they then called upon him to report
to them what amount of money he had received |
during certain years, and what were the legal ex-
penses OF his office. He replied and the State
charges that he made false report and stands |
ready to sustain the charge If there was |
any thing on file in the Comptroers |!
office to exculpate the traverser it was for the de.
fence TO produce 1t; the State has taken the re-
sponsi6ility to refuse to offer Them here or else
where before the public and the profession. Mr..
May after enlarging upon the reasons guiding him
IN his course in regard to the papers on file in the
Comptroers's office, proceeded to discuss the
specifications of the charges. -The first specif-
cation is that the 10th of January, 1859; he re-
ceived from the city,, S2,543. 80 and admits
only in his report the sum Of l,403. SO,
denied, but says it is a mistake. The State haIag
the traverser responsible for making mistakes, It
shows neglect of duty, as much so as making
false charges The second specification is that the
fees of the May term for 1859, were S3,73657, of
which Mr.. Whitney received the l4th of Sep
TENDER 1859, 81 1861, and admits in his report
only the receipt of Sl,540.34 showing a difference
against the State of 1926 49, which the defence adj
/ - Is
are always against the State, there is not solitary
error in favor of the State.-The thirdspecifcation
is that on the 9Th of November 1852 note for ST.
900, with interest, the balance of fees for the Nav
term for 1859 was received by Mr.. Whitney. He
| does not report this note, and conceals
| the interest. amounting to S57.95. 1t was taken
in payment from the city for fees. If it
not so taken, there was no use in taking it, why
not wait until the city paid the cash? 1t was as
safe charge against the city, as being placed as
apromissory note in the safeo Whitney &Cushing.
But it was the duty of the States Attorney to re-
port to the House that the note had been received
from the city. Fourthly-The fees of the Sep
cash on the 10th day of January 81 $40 "a and re-
returned. He refers to fees of SO as then
due So, l0O That was untrue, because if he
had not been paid the S1,54O34, it ought
to have been added and if paid the fact
how he conceals the fact that he held notes. by say
ing that they were only evidences of debt. The
State contends they were money, or he had right
to take them. No defence or explanation is offered
about the cash payment OF 81, 54034. His own
account shows that he had this amount at the time
of making his return. The fifth specification is
$751; 3 the 26th of April, 1858, was not re.
turned as paid until 1859. The defence insisted
upon the date of that receipt being wrong, bu! the
State by most conclusive proof, showed that the
nation or defence on this point. The sixth specif-
cation is, that the payments of Sheriff
| Dreamer not noticed in his report when there
proof of the payment of $4,000 before the report
Mr.. Pinkney, and $500, were paid before the end
of the year 1859, and 81 09l 81 during the previous
year, 1858. Creamers account to House of Dele
gates and his figures show this By the clerks
docket it is shown that Dreamer paid Whitney, in
1858, s2,ls0.26, and in 1859 Sl,734.93. Mr..
Dreamer thinks that he rendered his &C
count to Mr.. Whitney in January. The books
of the Office being always open to him, when
he could easily have got the payments, yet he fails
to return them. The traverser, therefore, conceals
said Mr.. May first: ST, lao; second, S29623: third,
interest on note of 81 300, amounting to S57.95;
fourth, ST. 54O.34 fifth, interest on Gaskin's paw
ment, S95.S2; sixth, Creamer's payments at least
S3,4OO.O0; amounts actually received and conceal
ed in this report, amounting to Sc, 1904. The
traverser undertook, as his report shows, to ac-
count for monies received by him up to the time
of rendering that report 1t was his duty to have
stated all this and also the fact that he had taken
and held the two notes for S., 100. If they were
received as payment for fees, the 81 900 was it
must be added to the Sc $50. 81 which would amount
to the receipt of So 430 "a prior to the rendering
his report, which amount either concealed or
misstated, and in way to deceive. Mr. May then
argued that the prsmissory notes received by Mr..
| Whitney were to be considered as money, and re.
ferred to the books to sustain the position. He
then discussed the matter of expenses as returned
IN Mr.. Whltney's report to the House, and said be
would show that they were false and decetful.
| His expenses the first year were, exclusive of the
payment to Mr.. Pinkney, S773.35; the second year,
Sl,3sO.42; the third year, $3.50 The second
the third years increase S2,O36G5. nea ly
quadruple. Mr.. May went on to show that
the law allowed no expenses to be charged in the
office OF States Attorney, but that they were for
hidden; He referred to the fact that no defence
was offered to this extortionate expense account by
the State. He then went on to disprove by the evil
| dence, that the account of expenses as returned
was faithful and true return. He had called wit
nesses experienced in such matters as the furnish
ing and use of stationery, experienced printer
and the parties of whom Mr.. Whitney had rented
| offices. BY an accurate calculation and liberal
allowance, he had arrived at the following rnres.