The Washington times., 1915-02-05
MYERS RAID ONCE MORE

MYERS RAID ONCE MORE
At the time of the sensational raid
on a pool-selling joint at Myers
Station, Anne Arundel county, Mary
land, several scores of people, mostly
from Washington, were arrested.
They were herded off to Jail, where
two or three times as many were
locked up as the Jail had capacity
to hold.
At that time The Times protested
that such treatment of a great num-
ber Of people was extraordinary, and
expressed the opinion that if the
Maryland authorities had merely
wanted to put an end to the pool
selling they could have done it just
as effectively, and ought to have
done it long before. The fact that
the joint was in operation had been
widely known for weeRs; so long,
indeed, that there was good ground
for the widespread notion that the
place somehow enjoyed immunity
from prosecution. After the belief
in this immunity had gained accept
ance, the police rush in and seize a
great number of habitues, all of
whom are subjected to most harrow
ing experiences in the face of the
fact that it will be absolutely i'm
possible to convict more than a very
few.
Now comes a most remarkable
confession from the Maryland au-
thorities. States Attorney Green
of Anne Arundel is quoted as say
ing at Annapolis that "had the men
taken in the raid been Marylanders
I should not have insisted on bail
being furnished, but as I needed wit
nesses to make a case, and these
persons were non-residents, I was
compelled to hold them in BAIL"
Holding them in bail in fact meant
holding them in Jail from Saturday
evening till Sunday, when they be-
gan to be released under bond. The
prosecuting attorney makes rather a
remarkable confession. If they had
been Marylanders they would not
have been compelled to give bail;
say nothing Of going to the lookup.
Is it to be understood that the Mary
land authorities are merely crusad-
ing against suckers from the outside
who are allowed to be lured into the
State? Are the States arrange
ments for espionage over its people
so perfect that bail is not needed in
such a case? The persistent scan
dals in that State over straw bond
ings suggest rather that even when
bond is exacted, it is mighty doubt
full question whether the bonded in
dividual will appear or the bond be
forfeited. Without bond, 1t is diff
cult to feel very sure that a hun
dred and odd Marylanders could be
quite relied upon to turn up and tes-
tify when wanted.
Apparently, too, the States attor-
ney realized that no great confidence
was going to be placed by sophisti-
Gated Marylanders in the enforce
ment of the bonds; for he follows
with an assurance that seems un-
necessarily vigorous, that he really
intends to forfeit the bonds if the
givers do not appear! The fact that
such an assurance is necessary sug-
gests a good deal about Maryland
sentiment and experience concerning
the holding power of a bail bond.
The States attorneys announce
ment, in short, points the conclusion
that
If the hundred and more people
arrested had been Marylanders they
would not have been required to give
bond.
They would not have been locked
up pending production of bondmen.
Giving bond in Maryland is re-
garded as matter of form: for it is
necessary to lay special emphasis on
the statement that in this case a
bond is going to mean what it SAYS.
Somehow the comities in interstate
craftsmanship seem to get a good
deal tangled as this case develops.
TURKS AT THE CANAL