Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-02

CIR lie was right IN bisv in that particular
Mr.. Z. then proceeded to consider the questions
which appeared to him necessarily TO arise In this
The first ground which he proposed to take was
not as the learned District Attorney appeared to as
sumo, whether this Court possessed or could eXer-
cise any CRIMINAL jurisdiction at common law That
was a point which Mr.. C.. conceded. His PROPOSE
ton was that the offence charged in this is
crime II an offence at all, against the United States,
ana against the United States aone that 1t Is char
ged as beng based Oh the common law; and that
the United States, in their fercrative character,
have no criminal law, can the Court exercise
common law jurisdiction any offence which III
It's character and nature is purely an offence against
tue United States. When he spoke of the United
States, III reference to this proposition, of the
government ola confederation, embracing four and
twenty different States within its limits, each of
winch hasis own.peculiur municipal law. BY the act
OF the United States accepting the cession of this
District. he went on to argue, the laws Of Maryland
| and of Virginia having been extended to the parts
of the District coded by each of those States, the
common law OF Maryland. as it then existed, is the
rule OF conduct here, matters criminal well
civil Admitting, then, that this Court does not sit
simply Federal Court, but has, III addition to
the powers Of the Courts OF the Union, all the powers
of the General Court OF Maryland anterior to the
ccsson OF the District, his proposition was, that
this Court possesses jurisdiction but that which
belongs 60 1t expressly of the Courts of the
United States, or that which belonged to the Gene
raj Court Of Maryland. and transferred to it on
District In the exercise OF its power derived by
transfer from the General Court of Maryland, could
not exercise jurisdiction this case, because it
was an offence against the Government Of the Uni
'nd States, and therefore not cognizabe by Safe
! Court. As Circuit Court it could not exercise
jurisdiction over it, because in that capacity it pos
sesed no criminal common law jurisdiction whatev-
cr II was maxim, he said, as old as written law,
that judicial tribunal cannot execute any crimi-
nal law but sach eliminates from its own Legsla-
turc and he instanced the cases of the practice in the,
English, Scotch and Irish Courts, which we're govern
cd their own distinct laws, well that OF our
| State Governments, each of them indcpcndent of
the General Government we'll as Of one another.
| Phis court, he illustrated il nv SAYING could not
under the power which it derived by transfer from
the government OF Maryland, rttict punishment
for the violation of any law OF Virginia; nor could
1t exercise any jurisdiction any offence against
the Federal Government. He quoted various decis-
ions OF courts of the United States and continental
res on the laws, TO sustain the general position that
State court cannot, even by an express act Of the
Legislature, take jurisdiction of offences against the
United States. The offence described in this indie
nient all offence ut all, could only be an offence
against the United States and therefore could not be
taken cognzance OF By this court in its derivatve
MUNICIPAL character. As court of the United
States the offence described being an offence against
the common law, If an offence at ALL he asked, with
! the certainty that he should not receive sasfac-
tory answer, 1t there be common law of the United
! States where Is II TO be founde Is it the common
! lazy OF massachusetts,, Of Maryland? of Louisiana
or Missouri If there he common law of the Uni
ted States, it must be the same in all the States
whereas 1t was notorious that in some Of the States
there is no common law, and that the notifications
OF by statutory enactment are different in all the
States Mr.. G. came to the conclusion, after COLI
siderable argument, that there is common law of
the United States as u source of jurisdictions and
that no offence not based the Constitution OF the
United States or laws made III conformity thereto
can be within the federal Jurisdiction In support
OF Which doctrine he quoted different legal authori
I ties
| The next position taken by Mr. C., was that no
such offence that described in the indictment exists
at the common law. a ~ I'd against the Govern
ment and People must be such Us to produce gene
raj INJURY, must be public in its nature, and effected
| by means calculated to deceive numbers. A thine
might be public property in one sense and not in
another. Thus the Bible, Shakespcarc's Puvs or
any work OF value, were, in one sense public pro
perty; and as such every citizen has property in
them which Congress can neither cortro! or take
away. An offence in,lictabIe at common law must
not N erey be an offence against the public domain
but against the rights of the community at LARGE
against the interest of the mass OF the citizens
| Frauds, to be indictable it common law Must be
public i'll their nature, and calculated to deceive the
Public IN general. The absence of any such feature
! III the present indictment, an incnrable defect
and could not be got over. In support of this doc
trine, Mr. G.. referred at arac 10 various British an
/ thoritics, SC.
MIR. C. next proceeded to state the more sueciffc
exceptions which he took to the form Of the jnict
incnt, which, though he dweIt rpon them at large.
VIC must he content briefly to notice The first ey-
ccption which he took TO it was that it did not CON
tain sufficient avcrment Of The sialse pretences"
alleged to have been made use of by the accused.
In reference to the attempt 10 make out case of
forgery miscmeanor, in the Indictment the conn.
sci on the other side must have supposed that tho
counsel for the accused demurrng TO the ndict-
nentsent out to the jury, instead of those found by
them for Indictment setting forth as forgery the
very abstract on which the charge of forgery was
now attempted to be maintained rs m.aIemcanor.
! had been returned ig1Dred by the Jury Could it
have been expected after this, whatever the iDnenu-
ty of the counsel that they would be driven to such
shifts as to contend that if al the rest of this indct
mcnt was bad, they could establish charre of for
gery under il? To sustain any Indictment Tor forgery
the words ''falscy forged and counterfcted" must
be used, and without them or words Of like import,
the indictment could not stand; & no snch words were
used in This ind i