Richmond enquirer. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1815-1867, 1829-06-09

reign Sovereign. or OF the United States. II al
baud, 10 the injury 1.-THE State Of Pennsylvania
should be committed in Maryland, il could not DO
tried in Pennsylvania; and shall il be said that il
is crime in Maryland to DO an unlawful act 10
| the injury OF Pennsylvania! What is there in the
circumstances OF the transaction 10 make il case
| of exclusive federal jurisdiction, Is il because
the defendant is stated - have been Fourth Au-
duor OF the Treasury of the United States. He
is not charged with having done any act in that
character, or by color of that ofence-nor is he
charged with the violation of any official duty;
nor with having made use Of his Office, official
character, toperpetrate the fraud. Is il because
che person whom the drafts were drawn was an
| officer Of the United States? That circumstance
| is perfectly immaterial, and cannot change the
! nature of the transaction.
| The foundation and substance OF the offence is
fraud--moral traud-critnen fdisi, the urpi;ude Of
which is neither increased nor diminished by the
circumstance that the draft was drawn by one Of
nicer OF the United States, and accepted by another,
neither oil them acting in his official character,
nor by virtue of his office Is il because the fraud
was committed by means of requisition from
the Navy Department upon the Treasury of the
United States' That circumstance does not alter
| the nature OF the offence. II is still simple
cheat, fraud. Is it because the United States is
the sufferer by the fraud, The same answer may
be given-The nature OF the offence is not there
by altered
We are. therefore, OF opinion, that there is no.
thing IN the character OF the parties, or in the
circumstances OF the transaction, which should
make IT a case Of exclusive federal jurisdiction;
but that II II be in its nature common law Of
fence and had been committed in State il might
have beed tried in Slate Court, as an offence
against that State. We think, therefore, that If il
be common law offence committed in this coun.
(! try, II is within the jurisdiction OF this Court
whose common law jurisdiction is derived from the
common law OF Maryland, which was, by the ac-
\ cession OF Maryland, and the acceptance OF Con-
gress, under The provision in the Constitution
OF the United States, transferred from MARYLAND
! to the United States with that remnant of State
sovereignty which, after the adoption Of the Fede-
! raj Constitution. was left TO MARYLAND All the
State prerogative which Maryland enjoyed under
( the common law which she adopted, so far as con.
/ cerned the ceded territory, passed to the United
States All the power which Maryland had by
virtue OF that common law prerogative, TO punish
| by indictments offenders against her sovereignty,
anu 10 protect that sovereignty, became vested in
/ the United States; and authorized them to punish
offenders against their sovereignty, and TO protect
that sovereignty by the same means-so far as re
CARDS the territory coded. We, therefore, think
that, in regard TO offences committed in this part
OF the District the United States have a Grimm al
common law-and that this Cour, has criminal
common law jurisdiction.
J The next ground of demurrer is-that fraud is
not an indictabc offence at common law, unless it
/ be effected by means of some false public token;
! such as false weights, measures, or marks, or
I by means OF forgery, or conspiracy; or by means
/ which affect the public generally, unless il be
fraud against the King and the public a, large
And even then is not sufficient that the King or
the public at large is the party injured, hut the
! fraud must be effected by means which are likely
to affect the public at large-means which are
generally mischieyous, such as adulterating proY-
sions, Sc
But TO this it was answered, that frauds affecticg
the public at large, The public revenue, consti-
sute distinct class OF cases, punishable by in
dictment, although the fraud be not effected by
means oil false public tokens, or by forgery, or by
conspir 'cy or by any particlar sort of means and
this position seems TO be supported By principle and
/ by precedent
| }. BY principle
! Why are any acts made punishable by public
prosecution? Because they are acts WHICH in their
nature are injurious to the public interests. The
| Interests TO be protected by the Government are,
lhe public peace the public morals, the public pro-
perry, and the public Justice Why is theft or rob-
berry an offence against the State? Because they
lead to bre ach Of the peace--to violence s. blood
shed in the protection recovery of the property
stolen Why are public lewdness and disorderly
| houses indctable offences? Because they tend 10
| njure the public morals--they are mischievous 10
many--io an indefinite number-to the public at
large. Why violations OF the public property
offences against the State? Because they inme-
distely affect the public ir,erest-the interests Of
| an indefinite number who cannot individually
compl9in-whose separate interest is not Injured
but who collectively only are sufferers, and who
collectively only have the right to seek redress
| why are acts which tend to obstruct the due adj
minisraton of usice indictable offences: Because
they are IN their nature injurious 10 the public at
large; Tor The due administration OF Justice is ne
cessary TO the protection OF all the other great in
icrests of society To such cases the rule ''Uigi-
! iGnhbWS, non d0rDltenti6us JLrG subueniunt'
cannot apply. The public cannot, like an ipdiyidu-
| al, be always on tbe watch. lfthey employ agents.
! those agents may sleep; or, what may be worse,
! thew WiDh--anl HWY tho rt,iie .tci,
the winkeT: The public is continually exposed 10
imposition; and if they do trust il is because they
are obliged 20 trust. Their confidence is not vol
unary, like that Of an individual, who may trans
act his own business. The public can act only hy'
agents, and cannot, therefore, be subjected to the
rule Of watchfu!ness.
! The principle, therefore, which, in transactions
! between individuals, requires, in order to make
Inc fraud indictable as public offence, thaiit
should be committed by means of tokens, OF OF
a'se pretences or forgery, or conspiracy does not
| apply 10 direct frauds upon the public.
z This distinction in principle is illustrated by
many precedents, which are collected by the ele-
| mentary writers upon the subject.
! East in his Pleas of the CToiiy1, p. S2I, prefa-
| ces his collection of them by this observation:
| $50 all frauds affecting the Crown and the pub-
"iic at large, indictabe though arising out of
"pariicular transaction contract with the party
&c This was admitted by the very terms of the OBJ
! '.jecon in the following case'
He then proceeds to give the substance Of the
indictment 1Feeue's case, from the MS notes of
, Judge Butler and the other judges
| II was FOR knowingly, wilfully, deceitfully, and
maliciousiy furnishing certain French Prisoners,
whose names were unknown, then being under
the Kings protection in Eastwood Hospital, 500
lbs OF unwholesome bread, whereby they became
injured in their heslihto The great damage of the
prisoners, the discredit Of the King, the evil ex-
ample, &c. and against the peace.