Baltimore Evening Sun (2 October 1912): 6.

The crash of onyx upon porphyry, the dull thumping of empty cocoanuts, the shrill shriek of windmills in a gale, the torture and death of the English language, the yowling of tom cats on a wet night, the explosion of bladders, the bleating of sheep, the clash of tin swords, the roll of drums, the braying of jackasses * * * a meeting of the job-hounds.

The merry combat of the platitudinarians:

• Maryland is a very nice State to live in.–The Hon. Harvey J. Speicher.
• Don’t overeat anything.–Miss Annette Kellerman.
• The Standard Oil people are human.--The Hon. David Stewart.

And don’t forget yesterday’s masterpiece of the Hon. Bill Flinn, of Pennsylvania:

Senator Pemrose * * * lied.

The boomers! The boomers! They’re back again, by damn! Oh, hear them pluck the contrabass and give the drum a slam!

In loving memory of Geheimrat Prof. Dr. John Turner, Jr., the only jobholder in history who resigned because he feared his work was suffering by his private engagements.

Two new novels that might be considerably worse:

• “Mrs. Ames,” by E. F. Benson (Doubleday-Page).
• “A Woman of Genius,: by Mary Austin (Doubleday-Page).

Two serious books that are well worth reading:

• “Woman in Modern Society,” by Earl Barnes (Huebsch).
• “My Life in Prison,” by Donald Lowrie (Kennerley).

Another loan for sewers. Another loan for parks. Another loan for conduits. Another loan for Loch Raven. A loan for Light street bridge. Lawf, suckers, lawf!

The Hon. Edgar Allan Poe, Attorney-General of Maryland, in explanation of his course in the case against the former sheriffs:

When I assumed the office of Attorney-General on December 30, 1911, I found upon the dockets of the courts four cases against former sheriffs of Baltimore city. Two of these cases were at issue, in another a demurrer to the declaration was outstanding, and in a fourth a motion to strike out a judgment by default was pending. I endeavored to have the two cases that were at issue brought to trial during the January term, 1912, but counsel for the defendants were not willing that the cases should be advanced and taken up out of their regular turn, and the term came to an end before the cases could be reached in due course. When the cases were settled in the May term I had them set down for an early day and was ready to proceed to trial, but on the very morning of the day assigned for the hearing, the defendants, exercising their Constitutional rights, removed them to another court. I at once followed them to the court to which they had been removed and by proper application had them advanced on the docket, and the result is that they are now assigned for trial. * * * In the other two cases the pending law motions were disposed of last May at the first opportunity that was presented, too late, hovever, to secure a trial on the merits before the summer recess, and I am now awaiting the determination of the trials set for September 23, wherein all the remaining questions in dispute in all four cases will he disposed of.

Obviously, a sound defense. Mr. Poe, it is plain, has displayed a reasonable diligence. So far as I am aware, no allegation to the contrary is before the house, or has ever been before the house. But it is precisely because he can make sucha defense, reasonably and in good faith, that the case against the former sheriffs has become a public stench–it is precisely because the highest law officer of the State may be thus flouted and made ridiculous that thousands of Marylanders begin to lose all respect for the courts.

What is the object of a court? Is it to adjudge causes, to work a fair and speedy justice, to protect rights, to put down wrong? Or is it merely to afford a fourth-rate burlesque show to the vulgar? Why should the taxpayers of Maryland pay out thousands of dollars for an exhinition as tawdry and as tedious as the proceeding against the former Sheriffs has been from the start? Are things going well when it is possible for one party to a suit to force the other party into a grotesque game of I-spy? Is that system sound, or wise, or even decent, which allows a case of the first public importance to go untried for more than three years, while the contending lawyers engage in absurd jousting over trivial technicalities?

What is a judge, after all? Is he a part and parcel of the judicial process, or is he merely a bored and helpless spectator? If he is the former, if he has any more actual authority in his courtroom than the doorkeeper, then why can’t he put down trickery and nonsense and bring a case to trial? And if he is the latter, then why have judges at all? Why not determine all disputes by the ordeal of the high-ball or the cast of the die? Of what advantage is it for man with a grievance to seek his day in court if his enmy can postpone that day ad infinitum, and pester him intolerably with minor and irrelevant issues, and waste his time and money without end, and make a monkey of him before the people?

This case against the former sheriffs, I believe, will serve a good purpose if it turns the thoughts of the taxpayers of Maryland to such questions. There is no accusation here that any individual has done wrong. The lawyers for the defendants, from beginning to end, have merely proceeded as other lawyers proceed every day. The learned judges, so far as I can make out, have acted in strict accordance with the rules and regulations made and provided. The two AttorneysGeneral engaged in the case have labored diligently. But the massive fact remains that more than three years have gone by without action, that the money of the people remains unrecovered, that the plain mandate of the Constitution is still defied and made a mock of.

It is this fact that the people remember. They don’t want to hear a long explanation of childish sparring, of idle wrangling over silly technicalities. What they want to know is why such technicalities are so potent in our courts, why a case of law has become a sort of puerile game, why this particular case has not come to trial on its merits. The more the thing is explained, the more absurd it becomes. The more it appears that such tomfoolery is perfectly regular and lawful in the courts, the more certain it becomes tha our whole judicial system needs an overhauling. Who will start that overhauling? Has the Bench a plan? Has the bar a plan? Or must we wait for it to be done by amateurs at Annapolis, angrily and badly?

Boil your drinking water; Cover your garbage can! Swat the few lingering, syncopic flies! Watch the ex-sheriffs turn their next trick!