Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-02

Mr.. kEY replied to SOME of the new matter intro.
duced In argument by the counsel who last address
sed the courts He said that the indictment ignored
by the Grand Jury was not anindctment for forgery,
but an Indictment under the statute of the United
States tor presenting to public accounting officer
paper known to be false forged which had been
returned by the Jury because they supposed the Of
fence not to come within the statute though they be-
ieved every fact in the indictment they had found to
be true. He denied that the words s1forre4 or
countereited' necessary technical words in an
indictment at common law for forgcry-The old
Latin words to express the offence were jabr;eart at
contsGfect and he did not know that these were at
all more less requisite to constitute CHARGE of
forgery than the whimsical translation of them, in
common use, which bad been supposed technically
necessary. After divers other observations in re-
ply
Mr. COKE reioined in few words.
Mr.. JONES, counsel for the accused aran address
sed the court. When he had the other tay sug-
lyestcd, as sort of conjectural Inference that the
counsel for the prosecution perhaps intended to in
clude charge of forgery in this Indictment he sup
posed that he was stating an inference which they
would hold up both hands against and that this state
ment might be considered arguendo an Gbsurd,rn
Ambiguity i'll an indictment, hesaid was the most fatal
of all exceptions Its charges must amount to absolute
certainty-must consist of positive and direct aver
ments-of certainty to q certain intent and not to
a common intent, &c. In the case of an averment
that person was all officer of Bank, us decided in
this court it not sufficient to prove that he was
clerk III Bank. &c. With regard to the charge of
forgery, Mr.. j. asked whether it was intended to
charge the letters written by the accused to be for
geres and being answered in the negative, he said
nothing could more strong ly illustrate the absurdty
OF attempting to establish charge Of forgery in this
Indictment, which declared that those letters were
falsely and fraudenty written, whilst the reausition
and abstract alleged to be forged were in the same
Indictment charged only, IN nearly the terms,
10 DE falsely and without authority, &c. If these
words constituted charge of forgery in the one case
they did so in the other, &c. which the counsel
Tor the accused themselves would be the first to de-
precatc.
Mr. j. further TOOK exception TO the indictments one and all
on account OF the nufarounes ndcfni:cness L. uncertain
~ OF charges they contained which he radical and
curate vice. more nischev0Is hill of indictment than
even III bill III cquityand for casons which ne
stated at large some principle which glanced at
III me lore part OF this report, and others of detail POINT OH
Whicn lie dwe most was tina, fraud against the government
10, uPi the revenue was NOT per t. an offence
law, or the statutes OF Great Britain country would
moi nave been enacted, which studosy provide tie
Nh saul there are common law offences which this court
has jurisdiction they Offences against particular system
ana operating precisely and idencaly formerly did
OF Maryland aud Virginia, respectively the parts
those parts OF the District had never been cee tie United
States Excusve jursdic,ion suid as given 10 onrrrs
TO all legislation, but it legislation exclusive of the
original state jurisdiction legislation Therefore he argued
the local power the United States within the miles square,
has been simply substituted tor the former local government
Suppose he asked, instead Of the general govern
IN the State OF Pennsylvania Oh the State of Maryland would
the offence alleged in this indictment, omslemeano in Office
be offence against the particular State which the govern.
nent resided? Amongst other arguments that this sort
OF common law offence ought hastily admitted by the
court, he ASKED shall it he said that authority can
cal! from his Office any public officer before it,
for the manner OF the discharge of his duties? If
veTnmen could call the Fourth Auditor this purpos
why not upon the Secretary of the Treasury? and upon the
ser eiay of the Treasury, why upon the President the
United States Upon this principle the power of the States
would be admitted, the
Administration of the Government OF u States And il
they could do IT under the law, why might not
dnder statutory enactmes modifying that common law Ii
Court TO make just and broad discrimination between such
acts as violations OF the local and common law
that which has been substituted Tor and such are ou, Of
the pale OF that law and belong particularly relations called
into existence with this Government, which belong them
exclusively and upon which would be impossible to ped-
cate any thing like law offence Not the officers
of the be shielded from responsibility for
offences at common law which would subject other czens to
punishment To suppose, ii rreverent suppose
such thing Of an officer of his high character that Pres
dent OF the United States if he commit and
battery forgery, murder, would not be punishable
law would be Blu, the question was whe-
ter the President ote United States violating his official Duty
committing offence wtieh e1ist ,cay BIZ
wise than may be made by s,atue not offences
by public officers in the discharge of their official cannot
be cogn'7able at common law This court, &c &C.
Mr. XIV and Mr. Coxg added few words: when the argI-
nent closed, and the question upon the demurrer submit
ted the Court whose decision thereon may SHORTY eX-
pcCted.
-l13-