13

ground for the accusation, or whether the arrest and deten-
tion are "without sufficient cause."

As the charges against these petitioners set forth in the
returns are different, and rest upon different proof, I must
now consider the cases seperately.

First, as to the charge of conspiracy against Young and
Valliant. This has been already fully set out as contained in
the warrant which was issued upon oath by a court of com-
petent jurisdiction, and is sufficient in form, charging an in-
dictable offence. There can be no doubt that, without reference
to the title of Young and Valiant to the office of police com-
missioners, and assuming that they were de jure entitled to
the office, and de facto in the exercise of their duties as such,
the conspiracy charged in this warrant would be an indictable
offence.

A forcible disseizin of Wood and Hindes of the buildings
and property held by them, however wrongfully, would be an
indictable offence, as tending to a breach of the public peace,
and it is settled in the State vs. Buchanan, 5 H. and J. 317,
that a conspiracy to do any unlawful act is an indictable of-
fence. On page 355 the Court says, "There is nothing in
the objection that to punish a conspiracy when the end is not
accomplished would be to punish a mere unexecuted intention.
It is not the bare intention that the law punishes, but the act of
conspiring, which is made a substantial offence by the nature
of the object intended to be effected."

Looking to the testimony of Fuller and Ball as to the de-
clarations of Valiant with regard to the intention of himself
and Young, taken in connection with the accompanying facts
and circumstances, I am of opinion there is probable cause
shown for their arrest and detention under this charge, and
that it is my duty to hold them to bail to answer the same.

The Criminal Court also had full jurisdiction and author-
ity to hold them to bail to keep the peace in the ordinary and
legal form.

It appears, however, from the return before me, that the
judge of the Criminal Court passed the following order .

CRIMINAL COURT OF BALTIMORE, September Term, 1863.—
State of Maryland vs. William Thomas Valiant and James
Young—Ordered, That William T. Valiant and James
Young give security in the sum of $20,000 to keep the peace
towards the existing police commissioners and all acting
under their orders, and towards the liege inhabitants of the
city, by desisting from all attempts to act as and exercise the
powers of police commissioners, so long as they shall not have
established their claims by law to be police commissioners for
the said city duly appointed, and the present commisiioners
continue in the de facto exercise of their office.

Warden Baltimore City Jail: Receive into your jail and