Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-06-05

that char acieI, orsby color Of tina, offence nor
is he charged with the violation OF any "hc'a'
duty, nor with having made use OF his ONCE, OF
official character, to perpeirate the iraoo.
i, because the person on whom the drafts were
drawn was an officer If the United Slates.-
That Circumstance is perfectly immsterlai, ana
cannot change the nature Of the transactions.
The found ion and substance oil the ohehce
is frsud-moral fraud-crimen faisi, the torpl-
tude Of which is neither increased nor cim'h'
isbed by The circumstaDcs that the draft was
drawn by one officer Of the United o'a'es' awe
accepted by another; neither Of them acting IN
his official character, nor by virtue Of his office.
Is il because the fraud was committed my
means of reQuisition {, ON the Navy Depar'.
me n, Don the Treasury OF the U8ired States!
That circumstance does not alter the nature o'
the off nee II j. still simple cheat, or fraud.
Is il because the United States Is the sufferer oy
the fraud? The same answer may be gwen
The nature of the offence is nol thereby altered
We are therefore OF opinion, that there is
nothing in The character OF the parties, or I'D
the circumstances Of the transaction, which
should make il case of exclusive federal Ju-
rjsdiction; blu, thai, If it be, in its nature,
common law offence, and had been committed
in State, it might have been 'ried 10 o.a.e
Court, as an offence against that ota'e. we
think, therefore, that il II be common ID"
Of nee committed in this country, II ls"i'hih
the jurisdiction of this Court, whose common
law jurisdiction is derived iIom the common
law Of Mary land, which was, by The cesalon "'
MARYLAND, and the acceptance of Congress, un-
der the provision in the Constitution 81 me
United States, transferred from Maryland TO
the United STATES, with that remnant OF Sa'e
sovereignty which, after the adoption OF the
Federal Con ,titutioD, was lief, 10 Maryland
All The State prerogaii,e which Maryland en-
ioyed under the common law which She adopt
ed 60 far as concerned the coded territory, pas
| sed TO the United States All he power whi'h
| MARYLAND had, by virtue &C that common law
| Dreroeative TO punish, by indictment, offend
ers against her sovereignty, and % pro'eci mat
sovereignty, bee anne vested In the United Sdes,
and authorized hem TO punish blenders agalns
! their sovereignty, and 10 pro'eci tha' so'er-
| eisnly by that means-sp TAR as regards the
territory coded. We therefore think that, in
| regard to off. noes committed wi'hin this part
| Of the District, the United States have a erlmi-
nal common law-and that this Court has
criminal common law jurisdiction.
The next ground Of demurrer is--tha' fraud
is not an indiclabe offrnce at common law, un-
less il be Effected by means OF some false pub
lie ,okrn-such as false weights or measures,
| s.,
cy-or by means which affect the public gene
rally, unless be fraud against the King ana
the public at large. And even then it is moi
sufficient that the King or the public at large
| is The party injured, but the fraud must be ef'
rAfy
mischievous, such as adulteI ating provisions
SC.
But 10 this il was answered, that frauds az
fecting the public a, large, or the public reve,
nue., constitute distinct class of cases, punish
able by indictment, although The fraud he not
effected by means of false public tokens, or by
forgery, or by conspiracy, or by aoy par ocular
sort Of means; and tins position seems to be
supported by principle and by precedent.
l. By principle:
Why are any acls made punishable by pub.
lie prosecutions? Because they are acs which,
in heir nature, are injuriousto the punlic in
'eres's. The interests TO be protected by The
Government are, the public pesce The public
morals, the public property, and the public JUS.
,ice Why is theft or robbery an offence
against The STATE? Because hey lead 10 a breach
of ,hr peace-to violence and bIoodshcd in the
PROJECTION or recovery of the property stolen.
| Whv Gre public lswdn.ss and disorder,y houses
indie,ablr oHvncts? Because they tend 10 in
iurr The pubic morals -rh y ale mischiev6us
to many-'o an indefinite number-,o the pub.
'ic a Urge Why violations of The public
property offences aSains, The State? Because
they immediately affect the public interes, - he
interest of an indehHle number who csnno, in
dividualv oompisIn-whose separate inteIes,
rs not injured, but who coll.' lively only are
sufferers, and who collectively only have the
right TO SEEK redress. Why are the acts which
| 'e"d to ohs'ruct The due administration Of JUS
tice indictabs offences? Because they are, in
their nature, injurious 20 the public al large
for The due ad nnistration Of jus ice is neres-
sary tn The protection Of all the other grea, in
teres's Of socie y. TO such cases the rule " III
g,ianiibas. non dornpenti6us Jura su6UeniunP"
canno apply. The public cannot, like an i'm
dividual, be always on the watch. IF they en-
ploy agents, those agents may sleep; or, what
may be war>c, they may wink-and how can
the public watch the wiDker? The public is
continually exposed to imposition; and if they
do trust, i, is because they are obliged to trust
Their confidence is not voluntary like that OF
an individual, who may transact his own bust
Ness The public can act only by agents; and
Cannot, therefore, be subjected to the rule of