Port Tobacco times, and Charles County advertiser. (Port Tobacco, Md.) 1845-1898, 1875-08-13

party to any case, civil or criminal, may
cause it to be removed to another iuris-
diction simply by making "a suggestion,
in writing, supported by the affidavit of
such party or his counsel, or other proper
evidence, that the party cannot have a
tair or impartial trial in the Court in
which, the case may be then pending.
The purpose of the proposed amendment
is to so change this provision as to prevent
the removal in criminal cases, where the
penalty is not capital, unless the party
making the application shall make it
satisfactorily appear to the Court that
such suggestion is true, or that there is
reasonable ground for the same" A case
may now be removed on the naked aft
davit of the prisoner, and it is proposed
to require some evidence other than this
to satisfy the Court before allowing the
removal in cases where the penalty is not
death.
Whilst the subject of this amendment is
of not much local interest to the people
of this county, it is matter of great i'm
portance in Baltimore city and the ada
cent counties of Baltimore, Anne Arun-
del and Howard, and of general interest
to all citizens who wish to see the admin
unobstructed so that justice may be melted
out speedily without delay"
In the city of Baltimore the exercise of
this right of removal has grown to be an
enormous abuse and cries aloud for cor
rection. There the experienced and ac-
complished villains easily escape justice
by the removal of their cases to the adj
joining counties. They thus obtain delay
with all the incidental advantages grow
ing out of the death or absence of impor-
tant witnesses for the State where the cases
are called, if indeed they are ever called.
Of course no conscientious scruples check
them for moment in taking the oath re-
quired ''that they cannot have fair and
impartial trial" That is exactly what
intend to have if they can avoid it. JUS
tice is the last thing on this earth they
wish to have administered to them, and
as there is no possibility of the law pun
ishing them for the perjury it permits and
invites, they take the chances, that one
false oatf more o. iess VIII not make much
difference in the big account already charg-
ed against them for hereafter, if indeed
they ever do think of that final account
ing. The cases thus removed entail an
enormous expense upon the city, which is
properly compelled to pay all the court
costs of the new tribunal. whilst they like
wise cause expense and great inconveni-
ence to the people of the counties, which
cannot be compensated for by the costs
which go into the pockets of the States
Attorney, Sheriff and Clerk. AS an ex-
ample of this, Baltimore County Court is
in session nearly the whole year and most
of the time engaged in trying or trying to
try these removed cases.
But apart from these undoubted abuses
of this power of removal, there are some
cOQS1ueTdllOuS
ton which are not inappropriate at the
present time.
This right of removal is one unknown
to the common law, and in antagonism to
its traditions and the great purpose for
which trial by jury was gradually shaped
into its form before this innovation. Dur
ing the Saxon era and long after the con-
quest of England by the Normans the ad-
ministration of justice was in the hands
of the people. Every tenant had voice
in the administration of civil justice in
the Court Baron, and the punishment of
crimes in the Court Leet. Out of this
gradually grew and took shape the Jury
ofthe vicinagc," which was originally COM
posed of those who were witnesses Of the
crime and the neighbors of the party
charged. The whole theory being that
the crime should be Investigated in the
immediate neighborhood where commit
ted and by those most likely to know all
about it and of the prisoner. AS time
the improperly of this was
conceded, and in order to secure an i'm
partial jury the right of peremptory chal-
Ienge was accorded to the traverser, and
also the challenge for cause, until now
in our day no man is allowed to sit on a
iury who has formed or expressed an
opinion, SO that it is next to impossible
to obtain jury from the most intelligent
class in case of more than ordinary con-
spicuousness. Thus it will be seen that
the whole policy and theory of trial by
Jury has undergone radical change and
has now for its foundation principle
which is the reverse of that on which it
was first established. Then the jury was
composed of those who were most cogni-
zant of the matter to be tried; now it
must consist of men who know nothing a
bout it, and too often, it is sad to say, who
are incapable of understanding it when
explained to them. In following out the
new theory of the necessity of having a
Jury entirely indifferent, as between the
State and the prisoner, this right Of re-
moval naturally resulted, for as civiliza-
ton and knowledge advanced, the news
paper spread abroad the daily record OF
crime, 'evoking discussion and opinion
and often producing prejudice. This
prejudice sometimes cannot be evaded ex-
cept by the exercise of this right of re-
moyal. Gases have arisen where its use
was absolutely necessary for the yindica-
ton of innocence, but in ninety cases
out of every hundred it is availed of to
defeat instice Yet. ifthe merciful maxim