64

tramp, if they had been disposed. There is no doubt that
the crowd could have thrown out the forty policemen from
the court house windows. But they were obedient to author-
ity, and respected the law. It was not the forty men with
batons—it was the law, that restrained them. .

It is only necessary to refer to these facts to show how idle
was the assertion that a riot was impending. What was the
conspiracy? James Young and Wm. T. Valiant conspiring
to carry out the duties they were appointed to perform? No.
The real conspirators were the old commissioners, who con-
spired to resist the law under the legal advice of some of our
legal friends on the other side, who should have advised them
better. My friend next me (Mr. Alexander,) at that particu-
lar time, found himself unhappily and unwittingly ignorant
of law.

[Here there were demonstrations of applause, which were
rebuked by Judge Bartol, and which did not again occur
during the day,

Mr. Latrobe said he referred to the testimony and the cir-
cumstances of the case to show how utterly futile is the argu-
ment of probable cause. Suppose there was probable cause,
out of what did it arise? That brings us to the root of the
matter. If that probable cause arose from the acts of those
who were carrying out their authority, they were not respon-
sible. If they were authorized to act as commissioners, they
were authorized to appoint officers under them. If there was
a rush to obtain the places of policemen under the new com-
missioners, or to see the new commissioners, it amounted not
to rioting; or if riot resulted from the resistance made by the
old commissioners to the authority of the new ones, then the
former are responsible.

We are, therefore, thrown at once upon the validity of the
appointment of Messrs. Young and Valiant, and of their
authority to act by virtue of their aqpointment. (Mr. La-
trobe then reviewed the law establishing the police force of
the city.] The power possessed by the police board is un-
predented. It was irresponsible except to the General As-
sembly. It had the broadest and amplest powers. That
was in 1860. In 1861 sad occurrences took place in Balti-
more, in connection with the beginning of the unhappy
troubles of our country. The Governor of the State found
the whole police authority of Baltimore vested in a board.
He was powerless to control them. The city was placed under
martial law. The Legislature, meeting in 1862, determined
that the Governor of the State should not be in subjection to
the board of police. Some of our friends on the other side
were members of the committee that was appointed to alter
the law, and gave the Governor the power to remove the com-
missioners for official misconduct. Our friends will argue,
perhaps, that the courts should be resorted to for the purpose