Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-05-30
From the National Intelligencer.

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED sTATEs'
May %, 1929.
UNITED STATES as. WArKlNs-[C Continued
The argument upon the demurrer TO the IN:
dic,ment against I. Watkins for alleged iraud
a, common law aeains, the United States was
resumed, on the opening Of the Court.
Mr.. r. S. CoxE. counsel for the accused,
commenced by observing that he agreed IN one
opinion expressed by the counsel whom II was
his duty to follow in arcument, viz: that this
is case Of great importance. 1t is SO IN eve
~ ASPECT in which il can be viewed. II is SO
in It's relation 10 the country a, large. There
is scarcely hamlet throughout the country,
nor an individual who paid any attention 10
passing events, TIA, had mol heard, In e1agge-
rated terms, OF The frauds alleged TO have been
committed by the individual now before the
Court. 1t was important TO the whole People
al large in another view. Deeply as the Peo-
ple are interested in the faithful execution OF
the Executive trusts Of the Government, thev
have a still deeper interest in the due lnterpre.
ta,ion of the criminal law Of the country and
in this aspect the case now before the Court
does present most serious and grave questions
The case was of importance 10 the Govern
ment also; for, as had been truly said, they
have thought il advisable 10 employ extra
counsel TO assist the learned and eminent At.
torney for the United States in this Court For
their doing so, Mr.. {. said he meant not to
CAS-, any imputation whatever, tor the impor-
lance of the case was sufficient 20 justify H.
need not add (said Mr.. c. how important the
case is TO the accused himself, TO his large and
interesting family nor need say how deeply
feel the responsibility devolved upon me,
standing where l am, by by these grave and
touching considerations.
| Mr. L. went on 10 STATE that he had intended
to congratulate the Two learned counsel on the
other side upon some of the matters which
they had presented 10 the view OF the Court In
the course of their argument yesterday. The
learned prosec utor in this Cour, espeoia had
thought il necessary 10 undertake gratultously
10 Justify the conduct Of all who had been con-
cerned in bringing this case before The Court.
Mr.. e had intended TO congra' uate him on
this new addition 10 the duties OF the District
Attorney. Whenever The case arrived, he
should be ready TO join issue with the learned
gentleman, and submit 10 The consideration Of
the Court and Of Jury whether he was right
in his views in that particular.
| Mr.. r.. then proceeded to consider the ques-
lions which appeared 10 him necessarily 10
arise in this Case
The FIRST ground which he proposed 10 take
was not, as the learned District Attorney ap.
pe AIRED to assume, whether this Court possess
ed or could exercise any criminal jurisdiction
at common law. Tha, was point which Mr..
C. conceded. His proposition was, that the
offrnce charged in this Case is a crime, II an
Off nee at all, against the Uhiied States, and
against the Uni I'd States alone {; that il is
| charged as b. ing based on the common law ;
and that The y .Srates in their frderatiye charac.
ter, have no Criminal common law, nor can the
! Cour, exercise common law jurisdiction over
70 pufery ohrrice agarnst The United STATES.
When he spoke Of the United STATES, in refer
ence 10 this proposition, IL was Of the Goyern-
meDt Of Confederation, embracing four and
twenty different States within is Limits, each Of
which has its own peculiar municipal law. BY
the act Of the Unird States accepting The ces
sion Of This District, he went on to argue, the
la VS. IF Maryland and Of Vrgini, having been
extended TO The parts of he District coded by
each Of those States, the common law Of Mary
land, as il then existed, is the rule Of conduct
here, III matters criminal as well as civil. Adj
miuing, then, that this Court does not si sim
| ply as Federal Cour', but has, in addition TO
tie powers Of tie Courts Of the Union, all the
powers Of the General Court Of Maryland ahte.
rior TO the cesslon Of The ID s'ric,, his PROPOSE
ton was, thatthis Cour, possesses no jurisdic.
| non bui that which belongs 10 i expressly ai
one Of tie Courts Of the United States, or 'ha
! hich belonged TO The General Court Of Mary
land, and was transferred TO il on the accepts!
ance, by Congress, Of the cession of the Dis
trie'. Ia the exercise Of its power derived by
transfer from the General Cour, of Maryland,
it could not exercise jursdic ion over this case,
because it was an offence against the Govern
ment Of the United States. and therefore not
equitable by State Court. AS Circuit
C"ur', it could not exercise jurisdis,ion over
1t, bee .use, in that capacity, it possessed no
criminal Common law jurisdiction whatever.
Ii was a maxim, he said as old as written
law, that one judicial tribunal Cannot execute
any criminal law but such as emana,es from
its own Legislature; and he inslanced the cases
of the practice in the English, Scotch and
Irish Courts, which were governed by their
own distinct laws as well as that Of our own
State Governments, each of them independent
of the General Government as well as Of one
another. This Court, he illustrated il by say.
ing, could not under the power which ii deri.