72

done with them that they will find that they have played at
the wrong game throughout.

When we express our indignation in terms scarcely ade-
quate to the outrage, what answer do they make to us ? The
answer they give this day is, that we are shut out from look-
ing at the truth—that we cannot go behind the papers that
they have brought into court, but must remain in jail until
discharged by the grand jury. It is useless to- cite authority
on a question like that. Common sense tells us that it would
be a libel on the age and country in which we live to allow
such principle to prevail.

At the conclusion of Mr. Horwitz's argument, the court
took a recess for one hour and a half. Upon the reassem-
bling of the court, at 3 o'clock. Mr. Schley gave the usual
notice to counsel on the other side of several legal authorities
he proposed to use in concluding the argument of the case.

ARGUMENT OF MR. ROGERS.

Alexander Rogers, Esq., the deputy State's attorney for
Baltimore city, said he felt a grave responsibility in appearing
to represent the State, and but that able counsel were asso-
ciated with him, he should regard it as a fearful responsi-
bility for him to assume. He thought that it was only neces-
sity to show the court that the commitments had been made
out properly and emanated from a proper court; that the
question would be examined as to the jurisdiction of the judge
sitting in habeas corpus. The old law said that if there were
errors in the returns, the remedy was by an action for per-
jury. The rule was afterwards changed, so that when the
return was traversed, an examination ex parte could be gone
into. He maintained that the court could not review a writ
of habeas corpus, unless the court had criminal jurisdiction.
He denied the power of a judge to go behind a warrant of
commitment, and quoted and commented upon a long list of
authorities to show that the precedents in Maryland were in
conflict with the fixed and established rules of law. The ac-
tion of a judge cannot be reviewed on a writof habeas corpus
—the discretion of a judge in the case cannot be reviewable.
Mr. Rogers expressed his regret at entering upon an almost
boundless field of discussion, but it was unavoidable. The
counsel on the other side have sufficiently indicated by their
manner and unfavorable opinion of the motives of the district
attorney and himself in the course they had pursued, but he
had no reason to distrust the correctness of the legal opinions
which they had given in the matter. He believed that by
their action they had saved the country from the horrors of a
civil strife, which would have been awful to contemplate.
However much their motives maybe impugned, they have the