Phenix gazette. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1825-1833, 1829-05-28


than jus, 10 his client, who had already been
subjected to much obloquy, and was likely to be
subjected to more, to place his case fairly be-
fore the Court. He proceeded TO say hat he
presumed il would BE- perfectly admissible for
him TO state that it was matter Of the high
est import ance 10 the good Of the country, and
to the security Of the rights Of the body Of the
People, that the criminal law Of the country
should be precisely understood and generally
known; and that the counsel for the accused
we're dischsrging nothing but duty Of the pro.
fession TO the Public, whose servants they in
some degree were. when they brought to the
test Of the law every accusation which went TO
place in peril The life or liberty of he citizen.
Nj. J. then proceeded TO argue the question
of the demurrer upon he ground. first, of the
essence of the offence; maintaining that, giving
every latitude TO the avermens in the iudict-
ments that was possible, moulding them into
the most unexce ptionable form, and admitting
them all 10 be proved, there was no ground for
charging the accused, as now indicted, with any
offence against the common law After which
he proposed 10 look into the indictments Them
selves, and See whether they were not still fur
,her from any definition of the criminal Of
fence than even the popular unders' anding of
the charge contained 10 them. He assumed,
what he Undertook TO demonstrate from The
terms Of the Indictments themselves, that the
whole amount Of the charges contained in them,
supposing those charges 10 be proved to their
utmost exren,, was the case Of misappropria-
ton, by an officer of the Government, TO his
priva'e use, nf moneys Of the Government
bringing hir, within the description of wha,
was commonly called public defaulter. The
question for the Court, then, was, whether the
numerous class of cases, comi"g under this de-
scription, does constitute an off, nee cocnizabe
by the common law OF The land. On the part
Of his client, and Of public justice, he main.
tanned tia, this was not case for The common
law: ;hs, il as not so in principle, nor was it
in authority.
Mr.. J. here wen, into an analysis of the pub
lie offences, to shew hat embezzlemeEt o! pub
lie money, unless made crime ny statutory
law, was rot the subject Of criminal judic allure,
unless eff.cte by means tending to work ge-
neral public evil; that is, by such means as
rgery, coun,eriri,ing Of seals, using false
weights. sc Sc and referred to many autborl-
ties to shew such to have been the uniform
curse of decisions in the English Courts, &c.
SC. The uffrnce charged in the Indie tmen's,
he said, was the obtaining Of cer,an sums OF
money, amounting altogether from $500 TO
1000 dollars and, il proved to he full extent,
being accompanied by no falsf alton or sur
rep,itious use OF any of those tokens or badges
which invite public confidence, did not cons'i-
tote all offence al common law.
Having argued al large The general question
Of ;ar law as applicable 10 the Case, Mr.. }.
proceeded 10 look into the indictments, which
he treated with very lirie ceremony as To their
contents. though wi II perfect decorum as TO
their authors. We have not room to give even
a synopsis Of III, argument on this, any more
than IN the FIRST ground he occupied
lie SAID that, in The frs, place, the indictment
hr held in his hand, (aud both were nearly in
the same form) con,sined no definite or in'e!ii'
eble charge Of false prrtcno"s at all. 1t was
tue that il heaped up number OF deiamatory
words but. IN the language of Lord Hol', TO
which he referred more than once, it requires
some hing more than deiama,o,y epi'htts 10
constitute a crime. Il was not efficient 10 i'm
pute tina, man has committed crime, but
the indie ment mus, shew ii. Now he con-
tended, when the allegations in these indicl-
m,nts were compared with one another. it
would be seen that they were repugnan, 10
each other, self conlr adicrd on their own face,
am f,ombe ginning TO end did no. comprise on
single Ineligible charge. !, was alledged
TOT III oHc paw ~ ivy ,
tina, r. w. did falsly and frauduently write Il
certain letter Sc and in he next clause OF tn
indictment il was claimed ihal every part OF
this letter was true, sc. and so o" through hi
whole. After fni,hing his analysis Of the in
Gic,ments, MIR. ] said he would not cite any au-
thori,i.s as TO ,he faults he had suggested in the
indictments, bee ause they were sufficiently 90
vous-not arising, he said, from any defect oil
skill in the gentlemen who drew them up, hu'
from the wan, Of manifestation the loo>eness
# the presen,ments, which sfforded no better
ground for them to build upon.
Mr.. J quoted Lord Ellrnboro"sh and othe,
authnr,irs to fortify his gener al positions, and
concluded Wy saying hat on these grounds nc
confidently expected, might il please the Court
to sust ii, the demurrer 10 these indictments.
Mr.. SWAMI, Arornty for the United STATES:
nexI had the floor: but The hour OF adj urn
men, having arr ed, the Court intimaled an
intention 10 al jnurn.
Mr. COKE, fo' The accused, gave notice, IN
addition 10 notice Of the authorizes which b"
should refer 10 in his argument, that he should
take an adti ionsl exception TO The indie lment.