Year: 1860

BOND,


After the call of the Court and Grand jury Mr.


whitney and his counsel, Chas. II. Pitts, ESQ,
being present, Judge Bond remarked that as vet
ne had been unable to get any one to accept the
appointment of States Attorney to prosecute the
cases found by the Grand Jury against Mr. Wilt
ney. 1t was question of grave Importance both
to the community and to the party accused that it
should have full, fair, and impartial inyestipa-
ton. The Court had applied to gentlemen of the
law to accept the appointment, in whose great
legal qualifications and legal acumen the commu-
nifty would have been satisfied in the performance
of the duties imposed but they had all declined to
serve, for reasons which were satisfactory to the
Court, and perfectly reasonable. The Court,
learning that the Hon. Reverdy johnson had
returned from California, had written to that gem
tleman, asking him to accept the appointment and
although reply had not yet been received from
Mr.. johnson, the Court felt great hone that that
gentleman would feel under obligation both to the
community and to the profession, that the appoint
ment should be accepted. and that the pros
ecution should be undertaken upon his part
The Court further said that if this was
merely an appointment to be made by the
Court for an attorney to prosecute a case
before the Court, it would have the power to COM
pei any member of the bar, upon the roll, to try
the case; but this was appointment of an officer
OF the Court, and it had no power to compel an
acceptance of the office. Under the present state
OF affairs, the Court thought that it would be best
TO ADJOURN the Court until Saturday, when it had
hopes that prosecuting attorney would be pre-
sent to undertake the prosecution of these cases.
Mr.. Pitts here arose and said that in view of the
fact that the Grand Jury had presented Mr.. Whit
ney for misdemeanor, he would call the attention
of the Cou' t, and through it, the attention of the
Grand Jury, to provision of the law in regard to
presentments. In this case the Grand jury have
presented Mr.. Whitney, and the names of certain
persons have been returned on the presentment as
witnesses. BY the Code of Public Laws of the State
of Maryland, 66 Sec, article 30, the accused is
entitled to know the party who has brought these
charges against him, the law says" Whenever
the grand jury shall find any presentment against
any person for misdemeanor, they shall endorse
on the presentment the name of the person at
whose instance such presentment is made, who
shall be deemed and taken to be the person at
whose instance such prosecution was commenced" :"
MIR. Whitney, said Mr.. Pitts, is presented by
the Grand Jury for misdemeanor he is ignorant
as to who set this prosecution foot, and accord
ing to the laws of the State he has right to know
At whose instance the presentments made. The
Orand Jury are then to disclose the name of the
particular person who set on foot this prosecution
by endorsing on the presentment such persons
name He would call the attention of the Court
ana the Grand Jury to this informality in
the presentments. He would go further,
ana IN order to relieve the Court of
any embarrassment it might have in the premi
ses, he would call the attention of the Court to the
9lst section, article 30th, of the Code of Public
Laws, which says: "Any person presented or in
dcted, may, instead of trayersing the same before
jury traverse the same before the Court, who