Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-02
DOMESTIC.
From he .NaiiotaI Iateiigcac:r
COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

When arrived in Court this morning. Mr.. SWAIN
was on the floor, having commenced his argument
in support of the Indictments against Tobias Wat
k'iis, at common law, for alleged lnsdcmeanors "a
glinct the United States.
Before we came IN VIC understand that Mr.. ).
Rad said that, having entered the court yesterday
ony ut the moment Of Mr.. .joness being inter
tupted III his Of remark upon the manner of
the arrest OF Mr.. Watkins, he was not aware Of the
exact import thcreol; but he tool occasion to say
That the officers of the Government had taken no
course but what they had thought ii their duty to
pursue: Ifthcy had erred therein that was q mat
Ter for the court to decide.
AR :. then examined the preliminary question
which had been made, which WAS, that tins court
has no criminal common law Jurisdictions. How
'his question ought to be settled Ill mere Federal
court, it not, perhaps, necessary here to decide.
Much had been said upon the subject, but he not
aware '!Iat any decision had ever been made by
Inc supreme court upun II. His own opinion was
at the court must necessarily exercise all the pow.
Grs which are necessary for the preservation Of the
Government Bribery, contcnpts, assaults riots, &c.
he said, arc all coia!aOn law offences, and must be
punished as such, not at Ill. Bnt, IN this Dis
trict, we have the State well Us the Federal iu-
risdic!on. Tho Constitution had given 70 Con-
s,rcss exclusive legislation over this district Con
gross had adopted the laws of Maryland for the
Government of the District; The common law was
Il part OF the law Of Mar land. and Of course
part of the law Of this county T'lIis common
law Jurisdiction had been constantly exercised NV
Tie courts hero. The common case ot torgcry by
ne common law had been s2ttl ID in IL, xanlra and
acre uSo, by decisions 81 TINS court. There was,
then, IN concluded, nothing III this objection.
Mr. - then proceeded tu consider tia os;c c,iors
- the indictment. 1t had boon SD To be tissue OF
dttanatory critbos. lie should be sorry to think
u was so--5ut OF this he was satisfied that nothing
- set forth il it but what is necessary to present
TAI: view OF the case
Mr.. s. yndicoted the indictments tilrougout as
Wi! the general import the general language there
ni, replying to the exceptions which had been taken
to both by the opposite counsel. If the terms used
were strong they might have been stronger but that
fe counsel for the u. $. followed the iapp,laue of
the jury. The Indictment set forth for example, that
oaenshy for the public SERVICE but falsely and frau
lulenty the accused had procured to be issued GER
tam "requistlon' upon the Treasury and he argued
that there distinction in principle between his
procuring the thing to be done and doing it himself
MIR. :. put The blank reuuisitions srncd bv the
Head OF Department, felt, is the usare in tl,
case OF his Absence TO be filed up as the eXircncics
OF tnc service may require: suppose of these to
he taken and filed up, without authority of law"
as aliedged III the Indictment III such manner as to
enable the accused to commit u fraud upon the Duh
nc: was this or was it not forgery? Mr.. S. here re-
erfed to the definition of forgery and the decisions
oi this CONT IN reference thereto &c concludnr his
argument by saying that it was not his province to
decide upon the question Of fraud, as CHARGED in the
Indtctnent; but the counsel had thought It their duty
TO ailcge it, as believing that they should be able to
prove it, Having gone through the details of the
indictment, Dir. S. said, here was case of man
who uses his public character, writes from his pub.
tic office, TO public agents, with view to ret
Fossessioio Oh puohc money, tor his own private lcrc
and gets that money and it for the court to say
whether bis doing all this was an inuictaLlc offence
at common law not.
In regard to the matter Of the common law. ,rdar
which this indictment is prcfcrred Mr. s. said Lc
should call to ms aid against the ingenuity OF the Oh
pos''c counsel, Common What is tie common
'aWf Ihe perfection OF reason; system of implied
obligations, the enforcement OF which in essential to
the well beng OF society; common law in a word IS
common sense and common Justice We can deter
nine for ourselves, without reference to authorities
what common sense requires. Let u.s. then ask orr
selves sad he, is the offence described in the ndct
mcns one which ought TO be punished or not9 Ifthe
common law did not embrace this case Mr. s. said
MI would agree that it ought to do SO. But Mr. S.
continued that the common law would bear him out
that the offence was ndictabIc and he doubted NOT
the court would SO decide,
In rc!y to the argument of the counsel on the other
SIDE, thut, if the facts alleged were proved they only
made the accused out to be public defauiter Mr. S.
snid that deauiter was very different person. q
drfauiier, IN the commonly understood sense of h,
sCrur person who is bound to receive or collect
The public money, which thus comes into his hands
by due course of law. Against such one it couIJ
not be charged that he failed to account al Ct 0.ms
Tie mere failure to pay makes him defilultcr; but
H'Cs this the ground on which this prosecution was
% stand? No: for The case Of the accused if the
Icts alleged were proved, was one of fraud from
acgunng TO end; lie had trespassed in writinr. Tho
iitst letter to the Navy Agent, in drawing the drafts
IA procuring acquisitions to be issued to paw them
and III altering the returns: he from beginning to
end trcspasser
Mr.. S. then proceeded to examine the Tnrl;sh an
lorscs, to show the definitions Of fraud indctal,
II common law, which have been established by
Size dc sions ofthc courts Of that Countrv from which
HaYng made co!lnus quotations, lc came to the OIL
'luSlO that any dcCuitiul practice fas well rs tot6p
which Affected might affect the pnblic prosnor;tv
or the public interest. offence indctable nj
common law Md Under this definition, in addition
10 tho dictate 81 reason and common sense he main
'ained the legality OF this Indictment
Mr. Key, on behalf OF The United Statn- Cyl,u,oJ