Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-05-29
From the National lutslligencer.


When we arrived in Court this morning.
MIR. SWAMI was on the floor, having commence
ed his argumen, in support Of the indictments
against Tobias Watkins, at comman law, Tor
alleged misdemeanors against the United
States.
Before we came in, we understand that Mr..
S. had said thai; having entered the Court yes
terday only at the moment of Mr.. JoNEs's being
interru pted in his course Of remark upon the
manner of the arrest Of Mr.. Watkins, he was
not aware Of the exact import thereof but ne
took occasion to say, that the officers OF the
Government had taken no course but what ihey
had thought il their duty TO pursue: II they
had erred therein, that was matter ior Inc
Court to decide.
Mr.. S. then examined the preliminary ques-
ton which had been made, which was, that this
Court has no criminal common law Jurisdic'
ton. How this question ought 10 be settled 10
mere Federal Court, il was not perhaps ne
cessary here to decide. Much had been said
upon the subject, but he was not aware that any
decision had yer been made by the Supreme
Court upon it. His own opinion was, that the
Courr mus, necessarily exercise all the powers
which are necessary for the preservation OF tue
Government Bribery, contem2ts, assaults
riots, sc. he said, ale all common law OFT noes,
and must be punished as such, or no, at all,
But, in this District, we have the State as well
! as the Federal Jurisdiction. The Constitution
| bad given 20 Congress exclusive legislation
over this District Congress had adopted the
laws Of Maryland for the government, OF the
District; the common law was part OF the
law Of Maryland, and Of course was part OF
the law Of this county. This common law ju-
1 N,l Ia, NV he
Cour,s here. The common case OF forgery by
the common law had been settled in A!e4an
dria, and here also, by decisions Of this Court.
There was then, he concluded, nothing III this
objection.
Mr.. S. then proceeded TO consider the objec.
/ lions to he ind e men,. 1t had been said TO
he tissue Of defoma,ary epi,he,s. He should
be sorry 10 think it was so-but of this he was
satisfied: that nothing is set forth in it but
what is necessary TO present fair view Of the
| case.
| MIR. S yindcatcd he indie tments through
out, as well the general import as the general
language thereof, replying 10 the exceptions
which h ID been aiken 10 both by the opposite
| counsel. If the terms used were strong, hey
might have been stronger, but that :he counsel
| for he United States followed the language OF
the Jury. The indictment SIT forth, for exam
pie, that nslensibly for he public service, but
falsely and 'rsudvlently the accused had pro
cured 10 BE issued certain requisision" upon
The Treasury aud he argued tina, thrre was
no distinction in principle between his proeur.
~ the Head Of Department 1 are ief a. is tn.
usage in the case of his absence, 10 be filed uu
as he rxigencies Of the service may require
| suppose one of these 10 be taken aud filled vo
without authority Of law" as alleged in the
| indictment, IN such manner as TO enable the
accused 10 Commit fraud upon the public
was this or was il not forgery? Mr.. S. here
referred TO the o. hnilion Of forgery, and the de-
| clsions OF This Court in reference thereto. SC.
concluding his argument by saying that il was
not his province % decide upon The que siion OF
| fraud, as charged in the Indictment but the
counsel had thought il their duty TO allie pc il.
as believing that they should be able 10 prove
II. Having got through the details Of the in
| dictment, Mr.. S. said, here was case OF man
| who uses his public character, writes from his
public Office, to public agents, with view to
get bossr sson of public money, for his own
ptiva'e lucre, and gets :ha, money and il was
Tor lhs Cour' 10 say whether his doing all this
was an indictabe offence at common law or
not.
In regard to The matter of the common law.
under which this ,nii"tmen, is preferred, Mr.
said he shouId call to his aid against The
Ingenuity OF the opposite councii, common
sense. Wha' Is the con mon law? The per-
t'>tion Ut &c sou; sys' m 81 implied ub!iga.
tions, the e forcsmeot # which is essential 10
the well being Of society Common law, in
word, is common sense and common Justice.
We Can DIT erm;ne far oursel..., wllhou, refer.
ence to suihoriiies, what common sense re
CURES Le' us, then ask ourselves, said he, is hr
otfrnce described in The ndlc meats one which
oushi TO be punished or not ? II the common
law did NOT embrace This case, Mr. 5. SAID
all would agree that it osgh, 10 do so. Blu,
MIR. S. continued that the common law would
bear him out that the offence was inGictable.
aud he doubted no, The Court would so de, |
eide.
In reply TO the argument of the counsel on |
the other side, that, if The facts alleged were
proved, they only made the accused GU, 10 be
public defau''er, Mr.. S. said that defaul,er was
a very different person. A defaulrer in the com>
monty und rstood sense of The term, is person
who