73

testimony of their conscience that they have acted in strict
conformity with the law. This is our crown of rejoicing, and
no man can deprive us of it.

Mr. R. then discussed the right of forcible induction into
office and the law of habeas corpus, and illustrated his views
by reference to the legal enactments and historical examples
for several hundred years. Mr. Roger's argument on all the
questions raised in the case was very full and exhaustive of
the subject, and lasted three hours.

At five o'clock, P. M., the further hearing was postponed
until 10 o'clock, A. M., to-morrow.

SATURDAY MORNING, Nov. 10th.

Upon the opening of the cases this morning, Mr. Rogers
asked permission to cite a few authorities on behalf of the
State to support the ground taken by him that a court could
act " upon view " in case of a riot—that it was not only suf-
ficient for the purpose of a warrant, but for the purpose of a
conviction, and that commitment in general terms was suffi-
cient. He also stated that if there was an error in the first
commitment of the parties, it was a misprision of the clerk,
and correctable by the court—that a court of record may com-
mit without form of warrant.

Mr. Schley said the State could not produce any authority
for a State's Attorney, deputy or judge to send in a new com-
mitment in the absence of the accused.

ARGUMENT OF MR. ALEXANDER.

Thomas S. Alexander, Esq., said, if I were about to ad-
dress the popular sense, I should refer to many of the topics
discussed by my friends on the other side with so much ener-
gy and eloquence. By making a plain statement of a plain
case, I could not doubt of my ability to convince my audience
the counsel and the court that instead of receiving the public
obloquy, the State's attorney and the judge of the Criminal
Court deserve the gratetul thanks of the country for their
prompt and energetic action in the arrest of the parties.

I am satisfied, and I think it is the general sentiment of
the community, that had it not been for that action, the sun
would have set upon Saturday last upon a scene of riot and
massacre and bloodshed. I cannot, however, forget that I
am arguing a legal case before a judge of the Court of Ap-
peals. I propose to limit myself to the discussion of questions
of law and fact. You have had a description of the events
which led to the adoption of the police law of 1861. The pre-
sent Executive of Maryland, who now'seeks to destroy the effi-
ciency of this board, was the head of the police organization
in 1860, and it was because of his manipulations of that force
that the change was made in the law. The opposing counsel
thinks no antecedent case of similar character is to be found
in history. They say justly that the Missouri case does not
10