Daily Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1828-1831, 1829-05-30

ths indictment: that to public officer OF the United
States entrusted with the disbursement of the public
money OF tho United States, viz: the Navy Agent a,
New York, he writes letter, which is recited in the
indictment: that according to the limitations con
famed IN the letter, he makes draft upon that officer
end the money Of the United States in the banda q,
that officer, is paid his said dra: that to repIacc
the money in the hands of j. X. Psuldinr which he
ootained from hun for that draft. aud five hundred
dollars more which ho intended 10 draw out bv n se
cond drait he, as the ndictnen charges ostcusibly
for tho public service, but falsely and frauducn,j
Tor ms own gnin. causes req uiston TO be issued mn
rn ,ho ireasuy OF the United States for thousand
dciars, W means oi which the money was drawn from
tue treasury and put into the huiids of J. X. Paul
hg' as ayerred in the Indictment for the use of the
'uSeu Oh pretcnce OF being for the public service.
Ahere @erc MI K. said, other drafts and other lie,
rs, and other acquisitions: but they presented nrc
eisciy the same question of law and he need not
them.
upon tins statement, Mr.. K asked, is this rs the
counsei Tor the accused contend the mere breach of
frost OF dcfauter or is it what We 1.-THE counsel for
the United States term it, the artfni continuance of
chcaG We might said he, shut up oil the books
end appeal to conn,on and ask whether there
can be greater misno,ncr tnn to call such an Often
der by the mild name Of u dcfaulter-puttilo him on
tne same footing with man who, though a defaul-
.er'm may have committed no wrong. Is the man who
- mol disb'irsing officer, who gives no bond who
cannot touch by lawful authority single dollar and
who breaks through oil these restraints leral and
morai-is he To be put footing with n man who
entrusted upon security with large sums of money be-
longing to the Goverrm INT, fails to make due pay
ment perhaps BY accident by circumsi ances which
hc could not control? This, Mr.. X said was great
question IN this cause, and he should discuss il by it,
sell, and placet in such light, he said that no, Il,
doubt could remain upon it, il the court was govern
ed either by the principle OF law, or by the weight
Of authority.
Mt K undertook maintain ,ha, the offence described in
then:cmen was erimnaliy punishable mscn,eanor
np thafh haap
oe brought TO tic contrary. The indictment could be mun,
NC sad against a.. question: on two grea, and unequivoca
gIounts First, fraud upon public therein
ccrbed is ndcabe always has been, and will continue
TO DO So whou, any legislative whatever Second
", apart rom the consideration OF the
being against the public, " the only the .ae a. If
committed agas, an individual s,il the indictment contains
onarees which the accused must answer cImnaly
ground that sets forth the making of false writings which Of
themselves constitute fraud indic,able common law
10 establish the FIRST of these positions Mr. reasoned at
great enth first aiming establish that offence charged
usscd with the public money, which necessary
td.e breach Of trust lf trust le argu.
cd was beyond all controversy ndicable offence
mon law There was, he said nothing else that could be-
Unless some statute exalted higher grade of inouty In
support OF its being So he quoted largely from the English
fhotiea commenting upon them he along genc
III conclusion was that there is class of punishable at
common law Because they frauds upon the public and that
HUT the government be brought down from its ecva
ton TO the level Of the individual and degree
hirauh he required TO constitute offence law,
whether committed individual the government still
he maintained that this indictment does
al
common law guilty Of then proceed
ed to illustrate this position What he asked forgery
According To blackstone, is the fraudulent or ma
King OF writing To the prejudice Of anohers right Forgery
~as but Cheat in ct the forms Of cheating aud SUCH
constituting Of itself ndeneauor would
all fire rest OF the indictment defective
stain IT. lie considered the whole of the
dcmen rs chain ot circumstances, link after link consI.
ling general charge OF fraud But STILL taken ITSELF
common law charge OF forgery, n1isdeneanoY sui
GENTLY laid the Indictment that the coun
sci fr the accused could this demurrer
MIR n replied large other exceptions
Us statements and details Which brought him question
whether fraud can he Pcrpetraed against the government
der the common law Upon this question he bestowed
Gw observations being many he thought required which
in the train Of reasoning those counsel who
preceded him. c considered the question, besides already
aoudged In conclusion, after ngenent of three hours
length MIR X submitted the the perfect
bdence that the indictment would be sustained
before the close of his remarks something occurred which
induced Mr. Key tina; nothing could he
fbng which had been said, might be SAIL suggesting
harsnsss on the ri the counsel for tho
tho nocusch They might have uscl hac terms tow rds
him, had they been disposed, &c SC
Mr. Coke, counsel for tic accused then said that the
hour of adjOurnmept had nearly arrived, tie
DO sufficiently igued by this days Luxurious sitting should
&c sad 10 be allowed until Tomorrow conclude the argument
No objection BEN. made the other side oreTed
day.